Preamble

The House met at Half-past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

SHOREHAM HARBOUR BILL (By Order)

Second Reading deferred till Thursday.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

Cornwall

Mr. Douglas Marshall: asked the Minister of Labour the unemployment figures in Cornwall to the latest available date.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Isaacs): Two thousand, five hundred and forty-eight at 11th April.

Mr. Marshall: Can the Minister account for the rise in this unemployment figure, and has he any satisfactory solution for it?

Mr. Isaacs: Until I had checked this with the previous figure I could not say that there was a rise. I will look at the figures, and if there is any further information, I will give it to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Marshall: I am surprised that the Minister does not exactly know the figure until he checks it up. The most pertinent point I wish to put to him is, will he see to it that he does everything possible to see that this figure decreases?

Mr. Isaacs: I am surprised at the hon. Gentleman's surprise. He asked me for the latest figure and I got it for him. If he had asked me how that compared with the previous one I would have done it for him. As to the second part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, we are always doing what we can.

Kodak, Limited, Wealdstone

Mr. Skinnard: asked the Minister of Labour whether his attention has been

drawn to the recent notices of redundancy issued by Messrs. Kodak Limited, to 260 of the workers in their Wealdstone factory; and what steps are being taken by his Department to assist them in finding alternative employment.

Mr. Isaacs: Yes, Sir, and in accordance with normal arrangements employment exchanges are assisting redundant workers to obtain alternative employment.

Mr. Skinnard: In view of the highly specialised nature of the work for many of these men, is it not possible to give any assurance that their particular services will be used in the export drive where they are most useful?

Mr. Isaacs: Yes, Sir. I am very glad that my hon. Friend asked that Question. There were 248 persons actually displaced, and on 12th May only 19 of that number remained unemployed.

Remploy Factory, Wolverhampton (Site)

Mr. H. D. Hughes: asked the Minister of Labour what progress has been made with plans for a Remploy factory to serve the Wolverhampton area; and when such a factory is likely to be opened.

Mr. Isaacs: The Disabled Persons Employment Corporation proposes to establish a Remploy factory to serve the Wolverhampton area; search is being made for suitable premises or a site but so far without success. It is not possible at present to say when the factory will be opened.

Mr. Hughes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this search for a site has been going on now for well over a year and no progress seems to have been made? Would he keep in touch with the Corporation, because a number of disabled workers in this area cannot find employment and they see no prospect of getting into a Remploy factory?

Mr. Isaacs: I appreciate my hon. Friend's concern in the matter, and in the last few days I have been looking into it. The Corporation are actively seeking a site but there is none that they can find at present. If my hon. Friend or anybody in the area could help us we should be much obliged.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Hospital Staffs

Mr. McFarlane: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he can give the total number of persons engaged on hospital administration in Scotland on 1st July, 1948; and the total number at present engaged.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Woodburn): Information as to the number at 1st July, 1948, would have to be obtained specially and I do not feel justified in asking hospital authorities to compile it. The present number of officers engaged in administration, including clerical and typing staff, is about 2,200, which comprises the staffs of the five regional boards, the 84 boards of management and the 425 hospitals in the service.

Mr. McFarlane: Is my right hon. Friend aware that last week he was able to give precise details to my hon. Friend the Member for South Aberdeen (Lady Tweedsmuir) in respect of the Royal Infirmary, Aberdeen? Why could he not possibly give us the figures for all hospitals in Scotland? In view of the concern expressed in Scotland as to the possibility of the present system being somewhat over laboured and too expensive, surely he agrees that the lack of answer which he has given may well further increase these suspicions?

Mr. Woodburn: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has cast these aspersions upon the ladies and gentlemen who are giving their services to running these hospitals. I have every confidence in the way they are running these hospitals. They were running them in many cases before we took over, and they are equally conscientious today. The hon. Lady the Member for South Aberdeen (Lady Tweedsmuir) asked me a specific Question, but to discover the details for which the hon. Gentleman asks would involve a great deal of effort on the part of these hospitals. I can give the hon. Gentleman a percentage administration figure, which is about 3½ per cent. of the total expenditure. That is a very good percentage for effective and efficient management.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is no question whatever of casting any slur on the people who are doing this work?

Many of the people running these hospitals are worried about the increases for administrative staffs.

Lady Tweedsmuir: Can the Secretary of State tell us whether it is a fact that these figures will be reduced in view of the cut in the National Health Service?

Mr. Woodburn: Hospitals will be effectively managed, and if any economies can be effected I am sure that all the boards will take whatever steps they can. We shall give them what guidance we can in this direction.

New Towns (Report)

Lieut.-Commander Clark Hutchison: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when the first reports made under Section 13 (6) of the New Towns Act, 1946, in respect of the proposed new towns in Scotland, will be published.

Mr. Woodburn: The fiat statutory report of the East Kilbride Development Corporation covering the period to 31st March last will, I understand, be submitted to me shortly and as required by the Act, I shall lay it before the House. The first report of the Glenrothes Development Corporation will cover the period to 31st March, 1950.

Hill Cattle Subsidy

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many applications for Hill Cattle subsidy have been refused in respect of land which was classified as hill land when the agricultural executive committees were responsible for making such recommendations but which has been re-classified and excluded since the Department of Agriculture's livestock inspectors have been responsible for making recommendations.

Mr. Woodburn: Of the 12,700 applications received in 1948, 11,874 have been passed, 424 have been refused and 383 remain to be dealt with. Of those refused to date, 133 come within the category to which the hon. Member refers.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: Does not the Minister think that it is more likely on the face of it that agricultural executive committees will be in a better position to know from their local knowledge whether land is qualified as hill farming land or as upland than his inspectors?


Will he look at this again and see if hardship can be avoided by making grants in cases which were formerly covered?

Mr. Woodburn: Naturally everyone who deals with the matter thinks he knows best. The advantage of having an inspector is that it does not lead to discrepancies between the judgment of one area and the judgment of another. The inspectors are judging by the same standard for Scotland as a whole, which is fairer to the farmers.

Mr. Gallacher: Will the Secretary of State make a political test of these applicants, and if there are any rotten Tories, not give them a bean?

Glasgow City Council (Ex-officio Members)

Mr. Rankin: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if, in view of the fact that they are not subject to election by democratic methods, he will abolish the posts of Dean of Guild and Deacon Convener as ex-officio members of the Glasgow City Council.

Mr. Carmichael: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if, in view of the fact that the Dean of Guild and Deacon Convener are not posts filled by democratic election, he will introduce legislation to exclude the holders of these offices from the Glasgow City Council.

Mr. McGovern: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will consider introducing an amending Bill to abolish the offices of Dean of Guild and Deacon Convener of the city of Glasgow since these offices are relics from before the era of democratic election.

Mr. Woodburn: I am looking into the whole question, but as this will involve detailed inquiries, I am not in a position to make any statement.

Mr. Rankin: In looking into the question, will my right hon. Friend keep before him the fact that the retention of this extraordinary privilege whereby certain electors-have two votes in the council elections of Glasgow and the other towns concerned violates the principle of "one elector, one vote" contained in the Local Government Act, 1947, and the Representation of the People Act, 1948? Will he seek to give effect to that provision in whatever decision he reaches?

Mr. Mitchison: Can the English know what a Deacon Convener is and what he does?

Mr. Woodburn: All the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Tradeston (Mr. Rankin) will be kept in mind in the inquiries I am making.

Mr. Carmichael: When he is making these inquiries, will my right hon. Friend also pay particular attention to the fact that the Deacon Convener, whatever be his responsibilities, and the Dean of Guild, whatever be his responsibilities, both decided against the will of the people of Glasgow in electing the Lord Provost?

Mr. John Henderson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that when the Deacon Convener and the Dean of Guild exercised their right to vote in that direction they gave great satisfaction to the citizens of Glasgow?

Mrs. Jean Mann: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is great indignation throughout the City of Glasgow that people who returned a majority by means of their democratic vote have now been defeated by some office which dates back to the fifteenth century? Will my right hon. Friend advise that these offices should be abolished now that we are a democratic country?

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Will the right hon. Gentleman also take counsel with his right hon. Friend the Minister of Health and also have the anomalies corrected which resulted in the gerrymandering of the London County Council in the recent elections? Will the right hon. Gentleman also note that the result of the voting in the Glasgow City Council is identical with the vote of the people of Glasgow, namely, a Progressive majority?

Mr. Woodburn: Naturally, many of these points have already been brought to my notice. I would not go so far as to describe either of these things as gerrymandering. Needless to say, all these things will be taken into account.

Mr. McGovern: Has my right hon. Friend any idea when he will be able to reach a decision on this matter and intimate it to the House? Is he aware that the use of these offices to vote out the majority party and to vote in the minority party causes great satisfaction to the Tories and very great anger to the Labour majority?

Mr. Woodburn: I am unable to say when, because the matter is more complicated than appears on the surface. Moreover, the hon. Gentleman will agree that they have been in existence for a long time and the urgency of the contention seems to have disappeared for the moment.

Mr. Mitchison: What about these "jobs for the boys"?

Commander Galbraith: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that on the many occasions on which these dignatories have voted for Labour proposals there has never been any question of the abolition of their offices?

Mr. Gilzean: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the City of Edinburgh, which is in a position corresponding to that of the City of Glasgow, it is possible for a ratepayer, whether he has a good, bad or indifferent character, to purchase a life-time vote for the Lord Dean of Guild for two guineas? Is he also aware that nobody knows who constitutes the franchise for the Deacon Convener?

House-building Workers

Mr. Willis: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that the number of men engaged on the construction of permanent houses and preparation of housing sites has fallen from 31,000 in December, 1948, to 26,600 in March, 1949; what effect this will have on the housing programme; and what steps are being taken to arrest this decline.

Mr. Woodburn: The provisional figure for March has now been adjusted to 28,069. The figures quoted however exclude men directly employed by local authorities; if these men are included the comparable figures become 35,300 in December and 32,500 in March. Many factors affect the totals of men employed on housing but the fall in the first quarter of this year probably results from the high rate of completion recently achieved. During the past few months the starting of a large number of new houses has been authorised and as they come into construction, this should be reflected in the number of men employed.

Mr. Willis: Is my right hon. Friend aware that these men are likely to drift out of the housing programme altogether?

In view of the very great need, will he give urgent consideration to increasing the number engaged?

Mr. Woodburn: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that this Spring probably for the first time for a long while many householders are able to get their houses redecorated and brought into repair. There is no check on the people who do that work outside the normal building industry. Naturally there is no desire to keep men unemployed if they can be used to do that work while the other work is being prepared.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the revised figures show that the labour force in Scotland is still declining while the comparative figures for England show that the labour force there is increasing? Is the Secretary of State aware that there is grave anxiety among Scottish local authorities about the labour position?

Mr. Woodburn: It is possible that that conclusion could be drawn but it would not necessarily be accurate. The fact that the number of men employed on new housing has gone down is no indication that they are not employed on other housing work which is not recorded in these figures.

Commander Galbraith: Are we to understand from the right hon. Gentleman that the reduction in the numbers employed is not the result of Government policy?

Mr. Woodburn: It is partly because we are very anxious that fewer people should be employed on building the houses on which larger numbers were employed last year. We must get the cost of housing down, and that can only be attained by improved efficiency in building.

Mr. Carmichael: In view of the serious situation which exists, will the right hon. Gentleman consider keeping these men in the building industry whatever form of building they are engaged in? Is not the building of new houses the most serious problem in Scotland?

Mr. Woodburn: The hon. Gentleman has just made the point I have been trying to make. The important thing is to build houses and not to keep the people employed if they are not actually building houses.

Mr. Willis: In view of the concern felt about this matter, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this subject on the Motion for the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

Special Schools

Mr. Malcolm MacPherson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many open-air or other special schools for delicate children there are in Scotland; and in the areas of which education authorities they are situated.

Mr. Woodburn: No schools have been established in Scotland primarily for delicate children but a number of pupils attending special schools for physically handicapped children belong to that category.

Mr. MacPherson: In view of the service that such schools have given elsewhere will the Secretary of State consider investigating the need in Scotland and, on the basis of what he finds out, consider whether it would be worth while establishing a similar system in Scotland?

Mr. Woodburn: This matter is at present being considered by the Scottish Advisory Council on Education. I am awaiting their report before we decide to take any steps.

Oral Answers to Questions — TERRITORIAL ARMY

Battledress

Colonel Ropner: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the battledress uniforms which are being issued to Territorial recruits are of poor quality and badly matched; and whether he will take action to ensure that Territorials are issued with battledresses of better quality and colour.

The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Shinwell): In the issue of battledress no differentiation whatever is made between units of the active Army and units of the Territorial Army. Some stocks of battle-dress produced during the war still exist, in some sizes, which are inferior in quality to present production. These garments are fully serviceable and must be used up. They are, therefore, issued in satisfaction of demands from units both of the active Army and of the Territorial Army.

Colonel Ropner: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that battledress issued to the Territorial Army is very badly matched and of very poor quality? Cannot he now give an assurance that there is some immediate prospect of the issue of blue uniform?

Mr. Shinwell: I should like to see all sections of the British Army immaculately attired, but the cloth is not available.

Brigadier Peto: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this complaint applies also to the Regular Army and that the shortage of battledress there is just as noticeable?

Mr. Shinwell: There is no shortage of battledress for the Regular Army, but we are using up the existing stocks.

Mr. A. R. W. Low: Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that, in the case of the Territorial Army, where men get only one suit of battledress, it is of superior rather than inferior quality?

Mr. Shinwell: I have already answered that question. We have to use the stocks we have.

Vehicles and Equipment

Colonel Ropner: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that owing to poor recruitment many Territorial Army units are not able to maintain adequately vehicles and equipment; and whether he will consider the possibility of increasing the civilian permanent staff on the establishment of Territorial Army units in order to ensure that vehicles and equipment are properly maintained.

Mr. Shinwell: Territorial Army units should only draw the vehicles and equipment which they are in a position to maintain. Units which have not recruited many men neither need nor have issued to them the same amount of equipment as those with larger numbers. A review of the permanent staff is at present taking place in the War Office; the maintenance of equipment is receiving consideration in this review.

Colonel Ropner: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that if units drew only the amount of equipment which bore some relation to their numbers, the result would be that they would not have one


vehicle or one particular piece of equipment on which men should train? Will he give this matter further consideration and see whether it is possible to increase the civilian assistance that these units get?

Mr. Shinwell: As I have said, we have the matter under review.

Brigadier Head: Is the Secretary of State aware that this situation can lead to a vicious circle? If units recruiting few men get no equipment it means that the men will be bored and then the unit does not recruit any more men.

Mr. Shinwell: I cannot imagine that the Territorial Army is bored.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY

Married Officers (Servant Allowance)

Major Tufton Beamish: asked the Secretary of State for War what servant allowance is payable to married officers, serving at home or abroad, who cannot have the assistance of a batman owing to the fact that married quarters are not available.

Mr. Shinwell: On the introduction of the post-war code of pay and allowances on 1st July, 1946, servant allowance as a separate emolument was abolished and for married officers became absorbed into marriage allowance. Since that date married officers accompanied by their families serving at home or abroad, and whether living in or out of quarters, have accordingly not been eligible for any servant allowance when batman service in kind at public expense is not available.

Major Beamish: I cannot quite understand the right hon. Gentleman's answer. Does it mean that if a married officer is so unlucky as not to be able to live in married quarters, as very many officers are unable to do, he cannot get the use of a batman and cannot have a servant allowance? Is not that a most anomalous situation?

Mr. Shinwell: They have the servant allowance, which was incorporated into the revised pay and allowances, an arrangement reached some time ago. They cannot have the services of a batman.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Could not the officers who find it a hardship to be without batmen, be provided with bowlers?

Married Quarters, Canal Zone

Major Beamish: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware of the great disappointment of married officers and other ranks serving in the Canal Zone at the continued shortage of married quarters and the apparent lack of effort to remedy the situation; and by what date it is planned to provide sufficient married quarters in this area.

Mr. Shinwell: I am well aware of the disappointment of married officers and other ranks serving in the Canal Zone at the continued shortage of married quarters and every effort is being made to improve the situation. Unfortunately however, the Army is faced with an enormous programme of building of all kinds, and the available resources have to be apportioned between commands and between the different kinds of buildings needed, including accommodation for unmarried soldiers as well as married quarters.

Major Beamish: Can the Secretary of State give any indication at all when there will be an improvement in what is a most disgraceful situation? Will he consider going out to the Middle East himself to see the appalling circumstances in which officers and other ranks have to live?

Mr. Shinwell: I know that the conditions are most unsatisfactory. They have been so for a long time. They are being improved, though not so rapidly as I should like.

Earl Winterton: As one who knew this district at one time only too well, may I ask the Secretary of State if he will look into this matter again? General considerations really do not apply here, because there is cheap accommodation. One of the things that militates against recruiting is the lack of married quarters.

Mr. Shinwell: I cannot say about recruiting. I have other opinions about it. The facts are all against the noble Lord. I can assure hon. Members in all quarters of the House that this matter engages my attention at all hours of the day. My staff are trying to improve the position.

Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: Is the domestic building programme of the Army in the Canal zone concentrated upon Fayed?

Mr. Shinwell: Fayed is naturally included, being headquarters, but I would not say offhand that it is entirely confined to it.

Overseas Service (Training)

Mr. Swingler: asked the Secretary of State for War what are now the minimum periods of training and service which a soldier must have completed before embarkation to the British Army of the Rhine, the Middle East and the Far East, respectively.

Mr. Shinwell: Before embarkation for B.A.O.R. a soldier must have completed the period of basic training appropriate for his arm and trade, for the Middle East 10 weeks' training and a total of 12 weeks' service, for the Far East 16 weeks' training, and a total of 18 weeks' service.

Mr. Swingler: Will the Minister say since when these limits have been enforced and whether they are now strictly enforced?

Mr. Shinwell: They have been enforced and strictly enforced within the last two or three weeks.

Troopships, Aden

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: asked the Secretary of State for War what charge is made at the Port of Aden for the conveyance from troopships to the shore of formed bodies of British troops landing for the purpose of exercise; and from what funds such charge is met.

Mr. Shinwell: Regulations do not permit formed bodies of troops to land at Aden for the purpose of exercise. The Question does not therefore arise.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: As it takes more than 36 days to get to Singapore, is it not very desirable for the health of the troops that they should be allowed under proper supervision to land at Aden for exercise purposes? Is not that in the interests of the Service and should not the State foot the bill?

Mr. Shinwell: That is not the Question on the Paper.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Yes, it is.

Schoolmistresses

General Sir George Jeffreys: asked the Secretary of State for War why the increases necessary to bring the rates of pension of Army schoolmistresses up to the revised Burnham Scale of 1948 have not yet been granted as promised; and, as the present pension rate of these schoolmistresses, namely, 3d. per day for each year's qualified service, is inadequate, if he will accelerate the grant of these increases.

Mr. Shinwell: The pension terms for Queen's Army schoolmistresses are under review, but I am not yet able to say what the result will be.

Sir G. Jeffreys: As these mistresses retire at the age of 50, which is much younger than the comparable age for civilian mistresses, will the right hon. Gentleman make an early announcement of new rates of pension, which should be comparable with those enjoyed by civilian mistresses?

Mr. Shinwell: We are having a review of the general position affecting Queen's Army schoolmistresses. I am not in a position to say when an announcement will be made.

Sir G. Jeffreys: asked the Secretary of State for War whether Army schoolmistresses who, in the absence of exceptional circumstances, are to be retired on reaching the age of 50 years, will be given any guarantee of further employment; or whether assistance in obtaining employment as teachers under local educational authorities will be given to them.

Mr. Shinwell: I regret that I cannot give a guarantee of further employment elsewhere for Queen's Army schoolmistresses after their retirement, but I understand from my right hon. Friend the Minister of Education that suitably qualified teachers are experiencing no difficulty in obtaining further employment, although choice of locality cannot be guaranteed.

Sir G. Jeffreys: Has not the education given in Army children's schools always been of a very high order and ought not the Army in dispensing with the services of these excellent schoolmistresses, to ensure that they get further suitable employment?

Mr. Shinwell: I gladly pay a tribute to the work undertaken by the Queen's Army schoolmistresses in the past. We cannot, of course, guarantee suitable employment after their retirement. As I have said, the Minister of Education will do his best to assist.

Mrs. Leah Manning: In view of the excellent work that the Army school-mistresses do, will my right hon. Friend undertake to have a consultation with the Minister of Education about the transfer of these women, rather than that they should be expected to find posts for themselves? We are very short of women teachers and I am sure that such a transfer could be arranged.

Mr. Shinwell: I will take note of what my hon. Friend says. I think there is something in it.

Air-Commodore Harvey: Would the right hon. Gentleman also try to persuade the Secretary of State for Air to employ these schoolmistresses where the education of children is sadly lacking?

Mr. Shinwell: I have no doubt that the Ministers concerned will have taken note of these questions.

Scottish Soldiers, Hong Kong

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for War how many Scottish soldiers are being sent to Hong Kong.

Mr. Shinwell: The information asked for by my hon. Friend could not be given without a disproportionate amount of work.

Mr. Hughes: Is the Minister aware that it has already appeared in the Press that the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders are being sent to Hong Kong? Can he tell us if these are conscripts or recruits, and if they have had the 16 weeks' training which he has stated is necessary?

Mr. Shinwell: That is an entirely different question.

German Ex-Prisoners of War

Mr. Driberg: asked the Secretary of State for War how many German ex-prisoners of war are serving in bomb disposal

units or otherwise in the British Army; what is their status; and what are the terms of their engagement.

Mr. Shinwell: Six hundred and forty-five German former prisoners of war are employed with bomb disposal units in the United Kingdom. A further 550 German former prisoners of war employed by the War Department are serving as volunteer civilian workers in the Middle East. Those in the United Kingdom are paid at rates varying between 103s. and 113s. per week of 44 hours. When accommodated and rationed at public expense a deduction of 30s. a week is made. In other respects such as leave, sick leave, insurance and Income Tax, their conditions of service are comparable to those of British industrial employees of the War Department. Those in the Middle East are paid at monthly rates varying from about £14 for semi-skilled workers to about £36 for medical officers and garrison engineers. They work a 48-hour week, get free accommodation, rations and medical treatment, and pay only local taxes. Both categories are employed under contracts which expire on 31st December, 1949.

Mr. Driberg: They are all civilians are they?

Mr. Shinwell: Yes, they are all civilians; they are what is described as "civilianised."

Bridging Camp, Halton

Mr. Fitzroy Maclean: asked the Secretary of State for War if he will give instructions that works of a permanent nature at the Halton, Lancashire, Bridging Camp, are to cease forthwith, in view of the fact that a public inquiry into the use of this site by his Department has been fixed for 30th June.

Mr. Shinwell: The works are designed to improve in certain essential respects, including sanitation, a camp which stands on land owned by the War Department since before the war and is required for training this year. The public local inquiry relates primarily to the continuance of a war-time extension of the training to other land. In the circumstances I do not regard these improvements as prejudicing the inquiry.

Oral Answers to Questions — FIELD MARSHAL VON MANSTEIN (TRIAL)

Mr. Scott-Elliot: asked the Secretary of State for War what are the charges against Field Marshal Von Manstein; and whether he will now consider the abandonment of such trials and review the sentences that have already been passed.

Mr. Shinwell: It would not be proper to disclose the charges until they have been considered by the convening officer and served on the defendant. His Majesty's Government do not intend to bring to trial in the British Zone of Germany any other persons accused of crimes against the laws and usages of war, apart from trials already begun and that of ex-Field Marshal von Manstein. I have already set up boards to review all war crimes trials undertaken by the military authorities.

Mr. Scott-Elliot: But surely my right hon. Friend will agree that conditions today are entirely different from what they were in 1945, and that it is high time we abandoned the trial of Field Marshal Von Manstein and of any others on my right hon. Friend's list?

Mr. Shinwell: No, in view of the allegations that have been made against ex-Field Marshal Von Manstein—I repeat, allegations—we are not prepared to abandon the trial.

Earl Winterton: In view of the fact that it is nearly four years since these delicate questions of international law have been handled by the Department of the right hon. Gentleman, can he without impropriety give the House an assurance that he is open to advice from the Attorney-General and not merely from the highest judicial authorities of the Army.

Mr. Shinwell: I have already said this is a Government decision.

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: Does not the Minister realise that large sections of public opinion condemn the cat-and-mouse policy which has been followed in this and other cases, and owing to the long delay in bringing this man to trial, will not my right hon. Friend look at it again and decide to call it off? It would be a good gesture, which would help our future relations with the Germans.

Mr. Shinwell: In a matter of this sort justice cannot be so satisfied.

Mr. Wilson Harris: In spite of the fact that strict justice may require that this man should be charged and perhaps punished, would not larger interests be better served by dropping the whole thing just at the moment when it is important that conditions in West Germany should become as normal as possible?

Mr. Shinwell: No, I rather think that would cut both ways.

Oral Answers to Questions — TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING

Berry Head, Devon

Mr. Charles Williams: asked the Minister of Town and Country Planning when he will make a decision on the inquiry which was held on 8th January, 1947, about Berry Head, South Devon.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Town and Country Planning (Mr. King): Since the inquiry was held, a good deal of further detailed investigation has been necessary, on a number of points. This is now almost complete and I hope to be able to issue the decision this month.

Mr. Williams: May I ask the hon. Gentleman why it is that the inquiry into a very simple matter should take so long? Is he aware that there is a large amount of quarrying which is detracting enormously from the amenities of the district?

Mr. King: The reason is largely that my right hon. Friend is anxious to secure agreement by consultation. Many parties are involved, there have been many consultations, and we hope for an agreed solution.

Mr. Williams: Is the hon. Gentleman quite sure that the only delaying factor is not another Minister, and is he not aware that the local authorities and everyone connected with the locality are perfectly aware that they can come to an agreement at once?

Land (Certificates)

Mr. Stokes: asked the Minister of Town and Country Planning how many applications have been made since the appointed day for certificates in respect


of dead ripe land under Section 80 of the Town and Country Planning Act; and what area of land that represents in London, in England outside of London, in Scotland and in Wales, respectively.

Mr. King: Since the appointed day, 13,785 applications have been received in respect of land in England and Wales; my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has received 246 applications, covering 903 acres, under Section 77 of the Scottish Act. It is regretted that figures indicating the areas of land involved are not available for England and Wales.

Mr. Stokes: May I ask my hon. Friend whether the figures he has given to the House are up to his expectations, or was he expecting more?

Mr. King: I think they are pretty well what was expected. I do not know that we ever went into estimates in detail.

Captain Crookshank: Could the hon. Gentleman describe a little more accurately the land concerned, which appears to be simultaneously "dead" and "ripe"?

Mr. King: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman is surely aware of the conditions described in the 1947 Act. If not, he has only to read the Act.

Mrs. Manning: Does my hon. Friend understand that the Chairman of the Committee does not think that these figures are all that they should be?

Mr. King: We are anxious to get in all applications under this Section as soon as possible. I think my right hon. Friend has given public expression to that desire.

Proposed Garage, Cheadle

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: asked the Minister of Town and Country Planning whether he is aware of the strong local feeling against the erection of a garage immediately next to St. Chad's Roman Catholic Church, Cheadle; and whether, in view of the fact that the project is calculated to interfere with the orderly conduct of Divine Service, he will reverse the decision to approve it recently given by the Cheshire County Council.

Mr. King: I understand that this matter is at present being discussed between the local authorities and the other parties concerned. I hope these discussions

may lead to a solution that can be accepted by both sides.

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: Is not my hon. Friend aware that the attitude of the Cheshire County Council in this case has so far been extremely high-handed, and that, if their proposal to endorse the erection of this garage next to the church is carried out, it will represent an act of vandalism?

Mr. King: I understand that the priest in charge and the county council are now in consultation one with another, and I hope they may reach agreement.

Development Charge (Payment)

Mr. Stokes: asked the Minister of Town and Country Planning in how many cases the assessed development charge has actually been paid; in how many cases the charge has not been paid, but has been merely set off against the right to receive payment out of the £300,000,000 fund; and if he will state, together with the sums involved, how many of such latter cases belong respectively to single plot owners and how many to owners of near ripe land.

Mr. King: Up to the end of April, 1949, development charge amounting to £715,000 had been paid in respect of 7,259 cases. In addition £731,000 in respect of 3,844 cases—all single plot cases—had been set off against claims up to 31st March, 1949—the latest date for which figures are available.

Mr. Stokes: Is my hon. Friend aware that if his Department or the Central Land Board go on at this rate, it will take them something like 300 years to collect the £300 million to be paid out in 1952?

Mr. King: We shall not go on at this rate.

Mr. C. Williams: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that some of my Socialist opponents are getting angry with his Department because of these iniquitous charges?

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL INSURANCE

Form and Leaflet

Sir Waldron Smithers: asked the Minister of National Insurance how many forms C.F.(N). 68 have been sent out; and how many copies of leaflet N.I. 38.

The Minister of National Insurance (Mr. James Griffiths): The figures are 9,000 and 271,000, respectively.

Sir W. Smithers: In view of the fact that this Government have brought the country to bankruptcy why, in order to advertise the Socialist policy, do we offer free services to the whole world?

Mr. Griffiths: The purpose of these leaflets is to explain to British persons leaving the country how they can maintain their insurance in this country, which would be to their advantage.

Office, St. Neots (Opening)

Mr. David Renton: asked the Minister of National Insurance whether he is aware that his Department's local office at St. Neots is open on Thursdays only and that one day per week is insufficient to meet the needs of the people of St. Neots and the large rural area which surrounds it; and whether he will take steps to have that office opened more frequently, preferably each weekday.

Mr. J. Griffiths: The office at St. Neots is linked with that at Huntingdon. I am not aware that the provision made at St. Neots by opening the office on one day a week is inadequate.

Mr. Renton: Is the Minister aware that there are at least 20 villages whose bus services are centred on St. Neots but whose people cannot get to Huntingdon, which is eight miles from St. Neots, and that it is a great inconvenience to these people to have only one day of the week on which to go to the office; and will he look into this matter further?

Mr. Griffiths: The highest number of callers on any one day has been 13, which proves, I think, that our provision is quite adequate.

Retirement Pensions

Mr. John Paton: asked the Minister of National Insurance (1) how many men and women, respectively, in receipt of retirement pensions on 5th April, 1949, were also receiving supplementary assistance from the National Assistance Board;
(2) the numbers of men and women, respectively, who were in receipt of retirement pensions on 5th April, 1949.

Mr. J. Griffiths: The numbers of men and women in receipt of retirement and contributory old age pensions on 5th April, 1949, were approximately 1,550,000 and 2,600,000, respectively. I am informed by the National Assistance Board that, of these, about 205,000 men and 425,000 women were receiving supplementary assistance. In addition there were 445,000 men and women in receipt of non-contributory pensions (including blind pensions) numbering 140,000 and 305,000, respectively. Of these 40,000 men and 65,000 women were in receipt of supplementary assistance.

Mr. Paton: Do the figures show any evidence of an increasing tendency for people to remain at work beyond retirement age?

Mr. Griffiths: Yes. If my hon. Friend will put down a Question I will give him the exact figure.

Contributions (Payment)

Mr. Renton: asked the Minister of National Insurance whether he is aware that Keith Brougham, of 17, Ramsey Road, St. Ives, Huntingdonshire, reached the age of 15 on Saturday, 30th April; that he worked for four and a half hours on that day; that the local office of his Department have insisted that he and his employer should pay their insurance contributions for the whole of the week commencing Monday, 25th April; and what is the reason for insisting on payment of the contributions for that week.

Mr. J. Griffiths: I am having inquiries made and will communicate with the hon. Member as soon as possible.

Mr. Renton: Will the Minister bear in mind that this young man voluntarily worked for four and a half hours on his birthday, which was a Saturday; and will the right hon. Gentleman consider whether it was a favourable entry into the great National Insurance scheme that he should have a deduction for the few hours he worked on that one day, which was the only day of the week for which he was liable?

Mr. Griffiths: I have made inquiries from the local office. The hon. Member's Question is the first we have heard about this case. That is why I am having further inquiries made.

Family Allowance

Mr Peter Freeman: asked the Minister of National Insurance whether, in view of the fact that the 5s. family allowance may not be spent in the interests of the child, he will introduce legislation providing for this to be issued in tokens which can only be exchanged for articles, clothing or food which are for the benefit of the child or children concerned as intended by this grant.

Mr. J. Griffiths: The Family Allowances Act provides that the allowances shall be paid for the benefit of the family as a whole. I have no evidence which would justify me in seeking to remove from parents the responsibility of deciding for themselves how the money can best be used.

Mrs. Mann: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the children are benefiting so much that it is impossible to distinguish them in appearance from children of the highest station in the land, and will he consider sending a message of congratulation to the mothers for the splendid work they are doing on this small allowance?

Mr. Griffiths: All our evidence shows that the family allowance has been a boon to mothers and I think it has been a very great advantage to the nation, for the health of the children, by all statistics, was better last year than at any time in history.

Oral Answers to Questions — BROADCASTING (COMMITTEE OF INQUIRY)

Mr. Emrys Roberts: asked the Lord President of the Council whether the Committee of Inquiry into the organisation of broadcasting will be empowered to hear evidence and make recommendations on whether a separate broadcasting corporation should be set up for Wales.

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): Yes, Sir.

Mr. Roberts: Will the members of the staff of the Broadcasting Corporation who are employed in Wales be able to give evidence before the Committee on this matter?

Mr. Morrison: That will be a matter for the Committee of Inquiry. I should not like to dogmatise about it.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Canadian Foodstuffs (Payment)

Mr. Stokes: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer on what grounds the Canadian Government have refused to accept sterling in payment for food supplied to this country.

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Douglas Jay): On the purely technical point, I am not aware that the Canadian authorities have refused to accept initial payment in sterling for our food purchases. In present circumstances, however, as sales by Canada to the United Kingdom and the rest of the sterling area greatly exceed sales to Canada by the United Kingdom and the rest of the sterling area, the excess of the sterling area's purchases over its sales has in effect to be paid for in dollars.

Mr. Stokes: May I ask my hon. Friend two questions arising out of that reply: first, are we to understand that no representations have been made by the Government suggesting to the Canadian Government that they should accept sterling; and second, is he aware that there are a large number of people in this country who manufacture goods which could quite easily be sent to Canada but that Canada prefers to buy from America?

Mr. Jay: As Canada is a dollar country——

Mr. Stokes: Why?

Mr. Jay: —and as our purchases from Canada exceed Canada's purchases from us, it is inevitable that the excess has to be paid for in dollars.

Mr. Stokes: Has my hon. Friend considered the extraordinary state of affairs that Canada is the only part of the British Empire which refuses to accept sterling, and what does he propose to do about it? Sooner or later they will have to send their food to America.

Mr. Jay: The answer is that Canada is in the American continent. That is no responsibility of this Government.

Mr. Stokes: In view of the very grave situation and the light-hearted way in which my hon. Friend deals with this matter I propose to raise the whole question on the Adjournment.

Purchase Tax

Mr. Douglas Marshall: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give an estimate of the loss to Purchase Tax revenue which would result if the present turnover, exempt from purchase tax of £500, was raised to £1,000 or to £1,500.

Mr. Jay: It is impossible to make a reliable estimate. The loss would probably not exceed one or two million pounds. But there are, of course, other considerations.

Mr. Marshall: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the purchasing power of the £ has been whittled away for five years, and will he reconsider the adjustment of this matter? It is now impossible to make a bare living at the original figure, and will he consider raising it?

Mr. Jay: I do not think that this estimate would be affected very much one way or the other by any changes in the value of the £ in the last few years.

Mr. Gallacher: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has considered a resolution passed by the Methil Co-operative Society and sent to him by the hon. Member for West Fife, condemning the increase of food prices arising from the Budget, and protesting against the failure to withdraw the Purchase Tax from household goods and every day necessities; and what reply he has made.

Mr. Jay: This Society wrote to my right hon. and learned Friend on 22nd April, and also to the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher), who forwarded their letter. I have already replied to the hon. Member, and I am sending him a copy of the reply which was sent to the Society on behalf of my right hon. and learned Friend.

Mr. Gallacher: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it was not a favourable reply that he sent to me and that I am raising this matter here in the hope of getting a favourable reply? Would he not consider this resolution in view of the fact that it expresses the desire of very many people in this country, and would he not revert to the policy of soaking the rich? There is still a lot of soaking to be done before they are down to their last soak.

Mrs. Leah Manning: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why the 100 per cent. Purchase Tax has now been added to engraved glassware which is not a luxury article.

Mr. Jay: The tax on glassware of cut glass includes glassware decorated by any form of cutting. It would not be practicable to exclude such examples of cut glass as might not be regarded as luxury articles.

Mrs. Manning: Is my hon. Friend aware that this Tax was not paid on engraved glass at the beginning, probably due to pressure from cut glass manufacturers? Is he further aware that it is quite fantastic to pay a tax of half-a-crown on a tumbler, which probably cost twopence? When will he allow us to have a bit of decoration without paying a ridiculous tax?

Mr. Jay: This House has laid down the rate of tax and, unfortunately, in practice it has proved impossible to distinguish between one form of cut glass and another.

Food Prices

Mr. Gallacher: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has considered a resolution from the workers of John Langs, Johnstone, and endorsed by the Paisley District Committee of the Amalgamated Engineering Union, protesting against the increases in food prices arising out of the recent Budget, a copy of which has been sent to him; and if he will now reconsider his attitude to this question.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall): Yes and No, Sir.

Mr. Gallacher: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he would seriously consider reversing these answers and give a "Yes" to the propositions of the workers?

Double Taxation (Eire)

Brigadier Medlicott: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether citizens of Eire working in this country pay the same Pay As You Earn as British subjects.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Yes, Sir, subject to the provisions of the Double Taxation Agreement made between this country


and Eire in 1926 and confirmed by Section 23 of the Finance Act, 1926, under which a person resident in one country only may claim exemption from tax in the other.

Capital Issues Committee

Mr. Scott-Elliot: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what directions he has given to the Capital Issues Committee concerning proposals that provide for reducing costs.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Specific reference was made to such projects in a memorandum addressed to the committee on 4th April. The terms of the memorandum were given in the reply which my right hon. and learned Friend gave to my hon. Friend, the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benson) on 14th April.

Sterling Balances

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the total in each year from 1945, and in 1949 to the latest convenient date, of sums withdrawn from sterling balances by other countries in agreement with His Majesty's Government.

Mr. Jay: I am preparing a table for circulation in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: As these sums are very large, and as they constitute a charge upon our productivity and result in exports for which we receive no return, can the hon. Gentleman say what action the Government are taking to cut down these releases to ensure that everything we make brings some return by way of imports to this country?

Mr. Jay: As the hon. and gallant Gentleman is aware, we have made and are making a number of agreements for the special purpose of limiting these releases.

Customs Search, Dover

Mr. Molson: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why Mr. F. Vanderzypen, a Belgian visiting the British Industries Fair, was separated from his British-born manager when the Ostend boat arrived at Dover on 2nd May, put into a room, required to undress and bodily searched; whether any money, valuables or dutiable goods were found

upon him; whether any apology was offered to him for the indignity and inconvenience he had undergone; and whether he is aware that this procedure must discourage foreign purchasers from visiting the British Industries Fair.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Separation of British from non-British passengers is a routine process which expedites immigration control of passengers. Mr. Vanderzypen was searched by the Customs on suspicions which happily proved to be unfounded. The inconvenience caused him is much regretted and Mr. Vanderzypen was so informed at the time. As regards the last part of the Question, I am afraid that it would be impossible to grant immunity from Customs examination to business visitors to this country.

Mr. Molson: Has the right hon. Gentleman inquired as to what were the grounds of suspicion upon which the Customs officers acted?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I obviously could not answer that question here.

Mr. Molson: Has the right hon. Gentleman satisfied himself that there was any sufficient reason to justify the action taken by the Customs officers?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: The Customs officials have the right to search anyone on suspicion and that is a right which they exercise with great circumspection. We must leave it at that.

Mr. Molson: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

Regional Petroleum Boards (Staffs)

Mr. Longden: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if his attention has been called to the increasing numbers of middle-aged persons who are being discharged from employment under regional petroleum boards in consequence of redundancy caused by measures of decontrol; and if he will see that other State Departments do not confine their advertisements on offers of employment to young persons only, but engage older ones who satisfy the requirements of competency, availability, and experience, as in the cases of those displaced.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: The staff of the Petroleum Board were not Government servants. In selecting applicants for submission to vacancies for temporary staff in Government Departments, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour and National Service has special regard to the claims of older persons.

P.A.Y.E. (Agricultural Workers)

Brigadier Peto: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware of the unfairness of existing regulations for Pay As You Earn, whereby an unmarried agricultural worker in group 35 who lives in, may receive £4 8s. free of tax, but that, if he lives out and has to pay for his board and lodgings, though in the same group he may only get £2 18s. free of tax; and whether he will take steps to end this anomaly.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: The liability to Income Tax in these cases is governed not by the P.A.Y.E. regulations, but by the general Income Tax law. Apart from the provisions of Part IV of the Finance Act, 1948, charging benefits in kind provided for directors and highly paid employees, the general rule is that where an employer undertakes to provide free board and lodging or other benefits which cannot be converted into cash, the value is not income for taxation purposes.

Brigadier Peto: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the case of the agricultural worker I have quoted, who lives out and pays his own board and lodging, that board and lodging money is subject to tax, but, if the employer pays the board and lodging, it is not subject to tax?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: That is exactly what I have been saying.

C.O.I. Exhibition (Attendance)

Mr. Gammans: asked the Economic Secretary to the Treasury what was the approximate number of people who visited the exhibition "On Our Way" in Oxford Street organised by the Central Office of Information.

Mr. Jay: During its six weeks' run, the exhibition was visited by approximately 150,000 people.

Mr. Gammans: Is the hon. Member aware that the figures he has given work out at about 3s. 6d. per head of the

public who attended and does he consider this taxpayers' money well spent?

Mr. Jay: Subject to the mental arithmetic of the hon. Member, which I think is not quite correct, he should not suppose that the effect of the exhibition was confined to people who went there and he might like to know that, as a result, a number of speeches, lectures and film shows were arranged to propagate the exhibition.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE

Housing Units (Export)

Mr. McFarlane: asked the President of the Board of Trade how many prefabricated housing units have been exported to Eire or any European country during the last 12 months; and how many under the headings of temporary and permanent, respectively.

The Secretary for Overseas Trade (Mr. Bottomley): Prefabricated housing units are not distinguished separately in the export statistics. I understand, however, that no applications have been received in the last 12 months for an allocation of timber for exports of housing units to the areas mentioned.

Photographic Materials (Export)

Mr. Skinnard: asked the President of the Board of Trade the value of photographic apparatus and material exported from the United Kingdom to European markets in the first quarter of 1949; and what were the comparable figures for the last quarter of 1948.

Mr. Bottomley: The value of exports of photographic apparatus and materials to European countries in the first quarter of 1949 was £458,000 compared with £439,000 in the last quarter of 1948.

New Factories

Mr. Daggar: asked the President of the Board of Trade the number of new factories and extensions, respectively, that have been erected in each of the 11 regions; also the number approved since December, 1944, up to the latest available date.

Mr. Bottomley: As the answer contains a number of figures, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the statement:


NUMBER OF NEW FACTORIES AND EXTENSION TO EXISTING FACTORIES OF 5,000 SQUARE FEET AND OVER APPROVED AND COMPLETED, DURING THE PERIOD DECEMBER 1944 TO THE 31ST MARCH, 1949.


Regions
New factories
Extensions to existing factories
Total new factories and extensions


1. NORTHERN:






Approved
…
222
248
470


Completed
…
139
123
262


2. EAST &amp; WEST RIDINGS:





Approved
…
117
371
488


Completed
…
45
156
201


3. NORTH MIDLAND:





Approved
…
91
270
361


Completed
…
19
61
80


4. EASTERN:





Approved
…
90
184
274


Completed
…
26
79
105


5. LONDON &amp; SOUTH EASTERN:





Approved
…
171
361
532


Completed
…
43
98
141


6. SOUTHERN:





Approved
…
61
104
165


Completed
…
17
34
51


7. SOUTH WESTERN:





Approved
…
84
125
209


Completed
…
44
62
106


8. WALES:





Approved
…
159
224
383


Completed
…
87
93
180


9. MIDLAND:





Approved
…
185
553
738


Completed
…
38
128
166


10. NORTH WESTERN:





Approved
…
158
563
721


Completed
…
50
224
274


11. SCOTLAND:





Approved
…
335
342
677


Completed
…
151
162
313


Total—Approved
1,673
3,345
5,018


—Completed
659
1,220
1,879

Overseas Buyers Club (Catering)

Mr. Lipson: asked the President of the Board of Trade to what firm he gave the contract for catering at the Overseas Buyers Club, Earls Court; whether a list of proposed prices was submitted to him in advance; and what are the charges for a cup of tea, a cup of coffee and a sandwich.

Mr. Bottomley: The catering arrangements for the Earls Court buildings, including the Overseas Buyers Club, are carried out by the owners, Earls Court Limited, as part of the tenancy agreement and no separate contract is placed by the Board of Trade. The proposed tariff for the club was discussed with the caterers before the opening of the Fair. The charge for a cup of tea is

4d. and for a cup of coffee 5d.; the price of a sandwich varies from 1s. upwards. I am sending the hon. Member a copy of the complete tariff of charges.

Mr. Lipson: Will the hon. Gentleman check up on the amounts he has given, because my information—from a reliable source—is that the charge for a cup of coffee was one shilling and for a cup of tea, eightpence? Is he aware that these high charges are likely to create a very unfavourable impression on those who attended and undo a great deal of the advantage provided by the exhibition?

Mr. Bottomley: I will have a look at the disparity in the charges mentioned, but that is the information given me. The Board of Trade have to accept the arrangement with the Earls Court association. It is private enterprise which is


carrying out the work, not the Government.

Mr. Gallacher: Is my hon. Friend aware that during the war the Minister of Food laid down that the minimum number of cups of tea to be obtained from one pound of tea was 250 and that generally 250 to 300 cups of tea are obtained? Will he make a calculation at fourpence a cup to see how much they are drawing in from one pound of tea and he will find that there is more profit in tea than in whisky, or in any other beverage?

Textile Prices

Mr. Sutcliffe: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the experience of textile exhibitors at the British Industries Fair was that British producers found it difficult to make their prices sufficiently competitive under present conditions; and what steps he proposes to take to assist the textile industry to effect price reductions.

Mr. Bottomley: I understand that some buyers have commented on certain of our textile prices, but such comments are far from being general. One object of the Government's drive to increase the output and efficiency of our textile industries is to secure lower costs and therefore lower prices, but high world prices of raw materials, particularly of wool, are a severe handicap.

Mr. Harold Davies: Is there now any possibility of relief to the textile industry from quota and currency restrictions, especially in view of the effect of the dominating influence of the Italians in the Latin-American market?

British Industries Fair (Results)

Mr. Sutcliffe: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he can give an indication of the amount of business transacted at the British Industries Fair; and how this compares with last year.

Mr. Bottomley: It has never been found possible to make even an approximate assessment of the amount of business transacted at the British Industries Fair, but, according to reports received from exhibitors and from the officials concerned with the Fair in London and

Birmingham, both the volume of orders received and the nature of the inquiries from overseas suggest that the ultimate results are likely to surpass those of the 1948 Fair.

Oral Answers to Questions — TOTALISATOR RECEIPTS

Mr. H. Hynd: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has happened to the balance of the 10 per cent. retained by the Racecourse Betting Control Board from their 1948 totalisator turnover over and above the surplus of £490,000 announced as having been put back into racing.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Younger): Broadly speaking, the moneys to which my hon. Friend refers are applied to meet the costs of operation, administration, taxation and certain miscellaneous expenditure. Detailed information will be published in the Racecourse Betting Control Board's Annual Report and Accounts for 1948, which will shortly be presented to Parliament.

Mr. Hynd: Is my hon. Friend aware that the amount mentioned in the Question is only 19 per cent. of the amount distributed? Does not this make a mockery of the Chancellor's contention that this 10 per cent. is for the encouragement of horse breeding?

Mr. Younger: I do not think I can accept the figure of 10 per cent. as being entirely accurate. A good many separate items are involved covering the remainder of the sum and I would ask my hon. Friend to await the Report, which he can study.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL MERCHANTS (SURCHARGE)

Mr. Lipson: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he is aware of the concern felt by coal merchants that they are to be surcharged 6d. to 1s. per ton of fuel invoiced to them; and whether he will arrange for this surcharge not to be made.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power (Mr. Robens): No, Sir. No representations have been made to my right hon. Friend by the trade. Merchants are not being


surcharged, but where they buy direct from the N.C.B. and require from them a wholesale distributor's service, the Board make an appropriate addition to the basic pithead price.

Mr. Lipson: Is this a new charge? Is it not a fact that this charge was imposed without any consultation with the coal merchants and, when they asked why it was to be charged, they were not given a satisfactory reply?

Mr. Robens: No, Sir. From 2nd May distributors were able to buy direct from the Coal Board. The basic transaction of the Coal Board extends only to delivering coal into the railway wagons, weighing, labelling and advising the consumers. If they want a service on top of that, there must be an additional charge.

Oral Answers to Questions — METAL (GOVERNMENT PURCHASES)

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: asked the Minister of Supply the total amount of hard currency expended by His Majesty's Government since the beginning of the present financial year to secure zinc, copper and lead; and if he will state a comparable figure if these materials had been secured at world prices ruling at the date of their delivery.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: £4,693,382 was paid in hard currencies between 1st April and 7th May for metal previously ordered and mostly shipped in March and April. Since there was a steep fall in prices in these months this metal, if purchased at the date of delivery would have cost about 15 per cent. less. The necessary supplies for early delivery could not, however, have been assured in this way and moreover for some of this metal there must in any case he a time lag of several weeks between purchase and delivery. For these reasons any hypothetical cost comparison of this kind is wholly misleading.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: Surely the Minister has made the very hypothetical comparison which he says he cannot make in the case of forward purchases. Would not he be able to give some indication as to how far his Ministry has committed this country to long-term contracts at prices above the world prices; and give the date when those contracts will run out, and further is this not the final proof that the London Metal Market ought to be reinstituted?

Mr. Strauss: It is quite wrong to say that we are committed to long-term contracts. Most of our contracts are for about three months.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: On that basis of three months, what is the total that the right hon. Gentleman will have to pay in hard currency over and above world prices if he had bought on a free market?

Mr. Strauss: I cannot say what is going to happen in the future, the prices may fall or rise. I have answered the Question of the hon. and gallant Member as well as I can. Taking certain factors into account it would be round about 15 per cent. which may well be hypothetical.

Mr. Eden: Can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that his mind is not closed to the re-opening of the metal market in London at the earliest possible moment?

Mr. Strauss: As I said earlier, the matter is under review by the Government.

Mr. Eden: It has been under consideration for a long time.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Proceedings on the Ireland Bill exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[The Prime Minister.]

LICENSING BILL

Order for Third Reading read.

3.32 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Younger): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
I think, as this is the first occasion on which I have addressed the House on the substance of this Bill on the Floor of the House, it would be right that I should begin by declaring an interest. It will not be a surprise to hon. Members to know that I belong to a brewing family, and I am in fact a shareholder in a Scottish brewery. I have never myself taken any active participation in the in-industry, and after hearing what I have to say, I think that there will be few hon. Members in this House who imagine that, on this occasion at least, I am a spokesman for the brewing industry.
It is now some five months since this Bill was discussed on Second Reading. At that time we were given to understand that the country was much agitated by the proposal in it for State management. The trade and the Press and the Opposition were all anxious to stimulate excitement upon this subject. Now, five months later, I find it rather hard to recapture the atmosphere of that Debate. Whether hon. and right hon. Gentleman who have their names down on the Order Paper to an Amendment to reject this Bill will try to restore the excited atmosphere of that earlier period I do not know. So far as the Debates have gone in Committee and on Report, I think it fair to say that the original excitement steadily ebbed away as argument proceeded and as the facts of the situation emerged, and, if I may say so without offence, as some opponents of the Bill at last really began to read the Bill and see what it implied.
The exaggerated attack on State management, both as a general principle and as it had been practised in the State management district of Carlisle, thoroughly overreached itself and eventually faded out. There was a violent trade campaign foreshadowed in the columns of the "Morning Advertiser," a campaign which was to be in support of the right of every free Briton to drink the beer of his own choice in any public house into which he might choose to go. That too, I would venture to say, some-what

misfired firstly, as it became clear that there would in fact be no tie in the new State managed houses and also when my hon. Friend the Member for Horn-church (Mr. Bing) called attention to the highly restrictive practice adopted by the trade in many respects at the present time. Moreover, I think it was borne in on the trade that a large part of their own members, and in particular a great number of licensed victuallers were much more interested in my hon. Friend's proposals to set them free than in the particular campaign which they were being invited to enter by the Brewers' Society.
At this stage little need be said about Parts II and III of the Bill, because I can scarcely be wrong in assuming that the Opposition Amendment is based primarily upon the provisions of Part I. About those other two parts I would only say that Part II, concerning mainly the constitution and procedure of licensing authorities has been the subject of little disagreement, and only on minor points, throughout our Debates. Part III, which contains a variety of miscellaneous provisions, is principally of interest because of the subject which we discussed very fully only last week on the Report stage, namely the provisions for winding up what have been known as bottle parties, and substituting new arrangements for the serving of liquid refreshment in certain hotels and restaurants and clubs in the London area. This was fully debated very recently, and although a number of hon. Members had misgivings about the proposals of my right hon. Friend, I think, in view of the general reception given by this House and subsequently in the Press to what he proposes, he is entitled to feel some modest satisfaction at having found a sensible solution to a rather intractable problem, and one which looks like being acceptable to the great bulk of public opinion.
May I turn to Part I and the State management proposals? In the Second Reading Debate the right hon. and learned Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe) told us he regarded them as the thin end of the wedge of nationalisation coming by stages. That suggestion, or allegation, was repeated very frequently by a number of hon. Members during the sittings which we devoted to this part of the Bill in Committee. There really is not the slighest


foundation for any such suggestion. As my right hon. Friend made clear on Second Reading this part of the Bill was introduced to deal with the quite specific problems occasioned by the planning of new towns. These were problems which were recognised by the brewing trade itself. Indeed, as my right hon. Friend said, it was the brewing trade which was the first to suggest that some special measures—though not precisely these—beyond the ordinary licensing arrangements would be required. If there is anybody who read the Bill carefully on Second Reading and who really had doubts on this matter, I suggest that those doubts would now be resolved by reading Part I of the Bill as it is now amended.
I wish to cover rapidly the main types of Amendments which have been introduced. They are designed to meet four types of anxiety which were expressed. First was the fear that under the Bill as introduced the Secretary of State might be legally entitled to extend the area of State management far beyond the new towns. Secondly, he might be legally entitled to extend the range of activities undertaken by State management in the new town areas. Thirdly, there was the very general and, if I may say so, proper anxiety to protect the interests of the rather limited number of existing licensees who might be affected when State management came into operation.
Finally, there was some anxiety that there should be adequate expression of local opinion at all stages of the introduction and management of the new scheme. I may say in passing that the Amendments which have been introduced to meet these various points are all entirely in accord with the original intention of my right hon. Friend, and it is the view of the Government that in many respects those fears were really unfounded. Nevertheless, my right hon. Friend has been anxious to do everything he could to make precise in the statute itself the provisions which he always had in mind.
Dealing first with the question of the extension of the area, the House will remember that there was a Clause 2 in the Bill which gave the Secretary of State power to extend the scheme to areas adjacent to new towns and areas between two or more towns which were near to each other. That has now been dropped.

The object of the original provision was to protect a narrow ring around the planned area. On reflection, however, my right hon. Friend feels that now that the whole country is covered by town and country planning provisions it probably will be sufficient to make use of the existing powers—the existing licensing laws and town and country planning powers—in order to protect the area immediately around the new town area from any undesirable developments in respect of licensed premises.
Secondly, as regards the range of functions which might be carried out under a State management scheme, some of my hon. Friends in Committee were afraid that in connection with the State management activities for off-sales business, they might undertake certain other businesses which are often associated with off-licences, such as chemists' shops or grocery businesses. I doubt very much whether there was any ground for that fear as the Bill was originally drafted. In any event, subsection (4) of Clause 1 now puts it beyond question that there cannot be an undue extension of the ancillary functions carried out in premises where liquor is sold for consumption off the premises. The second fear was perhaps even more far-fetched. It was suggested that my right hon. Friend or one of his successors might be entitled even to enter the greyhound racing business merely by virtue of the fact that the State management maintained a restaurant or a bar in the grandstand. That, of course, was never any part of the intention. Again, I doubt whether, as the Bill was originally drafted, it would have been possible, but to put the matter beyond any doubt Part II of the First Schedule has been redrafted, and any hon. Member who reads it will feel that there can now be no anxiety upon that score.
Thirdly, there was the question of the protection of existing tenants and managers. In terms of numbers this is likely to be an exceedingly small problem, partly because in many of the new town areas there are no existing licences and even in those areas where there are existing licences it seems clear that, at any rate in the long run, more and not fewer premises where liquor can be sold will be required as the towns develop. Nevertheless, it is important that even if the cases are few provision should be made


for them. Anxiety was expressed on that score from all sides of the House and of the Committee upstairs.
There is now a new Clause 4 in the Bill, the first part of which gives the greatest assurance that is practicable that a resident tenant, will have the chance to continue in his occupation under State management if his premises are required under the State management scheme. The second part of the Clause gives him an assurance about his living accommodation if for any reason he is displaced from a licensed house which is also his residence. I think that when one adds to those provisions the functions which can be carried out by the local advisory committee in making local opinion effective and, in particular, in watching over the public relations, if I may so call it, of the scheme with the local people, and when one takes into account the influence that the committee is likely to have, one can feel that this part of the Bill need give existing tenants and licensees no cause for anxiety.
Finally, the fourth of these fears was that there might not be an adequate scope for the expression of local opinion and not enough local autonomy. This is admittedly a rather difficult matter because—as my right hon. Friend said, and I do not think anybody disagreed with him—it does not seem desirable that the question of the local provision of liquor should be allowed to enter directly into local politics or that it should be a matter of contest at local elections. There are in Clause 1 a number of new provisions relating to the expression of local opinion through the local advisory committees. These provisions will ensure that the Secretary of State is advised by a local advisory committee which will be broadly representative in character and will be formed on the initiative of the development corporation in the new town. It will be formed after consultation with local authorities, licensing justices and other appropriate persons or bodies.
My right hon. Friend explained at some length in the course of the Debates how he envisaged the activities of these committees. He pointed out that they will be entitled to advise upon all aspects of the setting up and operation of the State management scheme. I think that hon. Members who read Clause 1 will now be

obliged to come to the conclusion that the people in these areas will have a very much more effective measure of control over the local facilities—both the amount of them and the way they are provided—than is ever the case in any area where the liquor is provided by the private trade subject only to the control of the licensing justices.
I appreciate that hon. Members opposite have such a general objection to any extension of Governmental activity in trade or in industry, that their objection to it is of such a doctrinaire and indiscriminate character, that they may find it rather difficult, even in a case like this, to apply their minds to the practical arguments which have been adduced in support of State intervention in this specialised and quite limited branch of activity.

Mr. Marlowe: The hon. Gentleman says that we take a doctrinaire and apparently impractical view of this matter. Is he aware that he has just recited the four major points in which this Bill has been somewhat improved during its passage through Committee, and that every one was put in by an Opposition Amendment or as a result of pressure from the Opposition?

Mr. Younger: I would not accept that they were by any means all put in through pressure from the Opposition. If indeed the hon. and learned Member is as impressed as I think he should be by the conciliatory manner in which legitimate criticism from both sides of the Committee has been received by my right hon. Friend, I only hope that he will vote for the Bill at the end of the Debate. I shall be glad to hear that hon. Gentlemen opposite are prepared to withdraw any general objection to the principle of the intervention of the State in trade or industry. That would be a new development.
We on this side of the House have no objection in principle to an increase in State participation in the liquor trade in which, after all, the Government have already had a considerable measure of success which has been commended by the Royal Commission and by other bodies of inquiry over a period of something like a quarter of a century. We are satisfied that this Bill, and particularly this Part of the Bill, provides an effective solution


to the very difficult problem of planning and developing the liquor facilities in these new towns, and it is upon that basis that I commend the Bill to the House.

3.50 p.m.

Major Sir David Maxwell Fyfe: I beg to move, to leave out "now," and at the end of the Question to add, "upon this day six months."
We on this side of the House oppose this Bill because it still applies the top-heavy machinery of centralisation to an essentially local and different problem. This is its cardinal error, which persists despite the concessions with regard to which the Under-Secretary has sung a modified and modest pæan of praise, but when the Under-Secretary protests that this is not the thin end of the wedge of nationalisation, there is a slight difference from six months ago. The position now is that our nationalised sword of Herbert Damocles, hanging by a certain number of hairs, remains suspended over the industry, and it is ready to drop as soon as the hairs or any of them shiver from political fear. What did the right hon. Gentleman the Lord President of the Council say at the close of the Second Reading Debate? Leaving out the interruptions, the right hon. Gentleman said:
If the trade is going to make itself … a party political instrument … then I venture to say that the trade will be ill-advised and will be inviting a policy which it does not want."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th December, 1948; Vol. 459, c. 1138.]
So, instead of the thin end of the wedge moving into the flank of the trade, we have this sword hanging over it, ready to be released as soon as the trade may offend the right hon. Gentleman the Lord President or any of his coadjutors.
But it does not stop there, because, as the Under-Secretary omitted to inform us, the attitude of his party with regard to nationalisation has suffered a sea change, if not a beer change, in the last six months. As I understand from their latest literary manifestations, they are determined that they will not lay down any definite line of cleavage between those activities which are to be the subject of private enterprise and those that are to be the subject of State enterprise, and that is to be done on the basis that, in the field which remains the field of private enterprise, the party opposite will take an

unqualified right to carry on individual or a number of operations at the public expense, their losses being covered by public funds, in order to compete with those parts of the industry still left free. Of course, we observe that into this conception the activities of this Bill fall snugly, and we point out the danger which lies on these lines.
I give the Under-Secretary some points. He has told us that the immediate attack has been decreased by omitting the areas around the new towns or the areas in between the new towns, and I grant him that that has been done, but reasonableness in that limited regard does not prevent us on this side from facing with open eyes the fear that still remains. I do not think the Under-Secretary was quite so happy when he dealt with the question of local rights. According to his attitude of mind, local rights are not troubled at all if we have an advisory committee. Again, we accept and are grateful for the smallest mercies. Then the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary improved the position of the local advisory committees and put forward a scheme which would come into operation through the development council consulting the local authorities, the licensing justices and others forming the scheme, but that scheme has to be confirmed by the Home Secretary, and, apart from that, it has no executive authority and there is no guarantee in history or in the Act that it will be used. In fact, it may well be a shadowy local governess from which Whitehall can easily play truant whenever it so desires, and that is the result.
With regard to local advisory committees—and I am sure always of the sincerity with which the Under-Secretary speaks—when he says that that gives a more effective control legally than under existing conditions, I fail to appreciate any basis for such a statement. Local justices who decide the matter at the moment are local people, knowing local affairs and understanding local conditions. On the other hand, where a more difficult problem has arisen, the licensing planning authority is representative not only of the justices but also of the local authorities, and these people have executive authority. What they say will be done. In place of that method we are left with the improved but certainly inadequate provisions for advice.
I was amazed that the Under-Secretary who shares with me the distinction—I am sure that we should both call it that—of Scottish blood, remained absolutely silent on the treatment of Scotland, which is still apparent and obvious in the Bill in its present state. I hope I shall not go an inch beyond what is permissible on Third Reading, but when we have a Bill which includes Scotland, as this Bill does, we are entitled to remember that for 100 years Scotland has had an entirely different history in licensing matters. When he came to consider 1931 and the Royal Commissions, the Under-Secretary took some rather placid commendation from the English Commission. It was a very tepid commendation which they included, and it was given on conditions which would be quite unacceptable to the framers of this Bill and are quite different from anything in this Bill.
But when we come to the Scottish Commission, we are again faced with the fact that both the majority and minority reports were emphatic in their condemnation of the system which is now being perpetuated, and the minority report in fact reflected the views of figures of the greatest eminence and respect in the Labour movement of that time. But the main point still remains that on a question like this, with differences of history, of treatment by Commissions, and of present conditions, there ought to be a separate Bill for Scotland; it should not be included as the fag end of an English Bill, as is being done today. I cannot understand why this Bill has been taken as an occasion deliberately to flout Scottish opinion and the legitimate desire for separate treatment which exists North of the Tweed.
The hon. Gentleman said that his right hon. Friend has met us on various matters. I agree that on the three matters of the boundaries—the districts between—on the advisory committees, and on the improvement of the position of the licensees, the right hon. Gentleman certainly did meet us; but they are comparatively minor, though important, matters, and we must not disguise from the House or the country the great powers which the right hon. Gentleman still retains. It is still true that not only is there to be State management of public houses, but that the right hon. Gentleman is to have power to run hotels and

teashops, to provide entertainments on the premises, and to brew beer and manufacture soft drinks, as well as various ancillary powers which also cover a wide field. It is no small matter, and no small step which is being taken; the powers secured by the right hon. Gentleman are extensive and must be watched.
I echo what was said by my hon. and learned Friend the junior Member for Brighton (Mr. Marlowe), but I am glad that there has been an improvement in the position of licensees of houses in the new towns. It was most unfortunate that when this Bill was introduced many hon. Members opposite wrote to their constituents and published the fact that there was no question of existing licensed houses being affected. However, that point has been clarified, and, in addition, the right hon. Gentleman has met us to the extent of giving assurances with regard to dwelling-houses in the new towns, and, as far as practicable, in finding employment for dispossessed licensees. For that, we are very grateful. It is very easy for the Under-Secretary to say that this is a matter concerning only a small number of people, but it is a most important matter for those who are licensees in the 40 or 50 districts which may eventually become new towns. We still believe—again, I am not going into it in detail, but I do not want there to be any doubt about our position—that it would not have affected the problem with which the right hon. Gentleman is dealing and would have removed all difficulty of this kind had he consented to give up his compulsory powers of purchase and been prepared to work on a basis by which the houses could have been re-distributed without that threat to the licensees, whether they be tenants or managers of the houses.
On Third Reading it is not correct—and, believe me, I do not intend to trespass—to go into the alternatives to the scheme put forward by the Minister. However, I think it is in Order and only fair to say this. It is often suggested that the Opposition—indeed, it has always been suggested against every Opposition in the past—have put forward no alternative to the scheme in the Bill. I only wish to say, so that the matter may be on record, that on Second Reading, and at great length during the Committee stage, my hon. Friends and I put forward


a scheme for applying the licensing planning machinery to these areas, a scheme which would have given the licensing justices and the local authorities, together with the development corporations, the chance of finding a local solution of the various problems that are raised. We still believe that what we propounded was the right solution, but what is important is that it should be on record that we did propound that solution, and that it is no mere blank negation which we have put forward against the right hon. Gentleman's proposals.
I come now to the point at which I started in opposing this Bill. I believe it is quite intolerable that in a democratic country in time of peace there should be interference with the right of the ordinary man to choose the type of draught beer he wants to drink. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I believe that is an essential basis of liberty, taking into account the ordinary range of human nature as we know it, and I am sure that there is practically entire agreement on that point. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] What we complain about is that if State management is imposed on a new town, or anywhere else, it will be impossible to go round the corner from the house one visits, if one does not like the State beer, and get a can of the beer one does like. That is a perfectly simple point of view; that is the basis of our opposition, and we are proud of it being the basis of our opposition.

Mr. Walkden: Is it not proposed that under this Bill there will be a wide choice of draught ale in the new development areas, a choice which does not exist in Carlisle at the moment, and which many of us think should exist there?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I can only say that I have found no basis for the irrepressible optimism of the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walkden). These are the conditions as I see the position. The Home Secretary has power compulsorily to take over any house that is there. It is true that he could leave it, but one knows how the passion for neatness, orderliness, and regimentation arises as these schemes get into operation. The far greater likelihood is that the houses, or most of them, will be acquired. One comes to this position, which I hope I put quite fairly. The Home Secretary told me there were one or two houses in

Carlisle where one could obtain draught beer other than State beer. That is not good enough. When 60,000 or 70,000 people are, at any rate so far as the vast majority of them are concerned, confined to State beer, it is no good saying that, after all, they can walk outside the town and go to the next district. Let hon. Members try it on a December night in the North of England and see who is ready to walk two, three or five miles. We say that that is an intolerable burden and we say it is completely unnecessary.
I will not trespass, Mr. Speaker, but I must say that all the procedure was offered for keeping variety and keeping freedom in these new places. Instead, the Government have chosen to clamp down upon them the dull and gloomy iron framework of a State scheme. The Parliamentary Secretary asked, very pleasantly and without any offence, whether we would try to manufacture any feeling on this Bill. Of course not; there is no need to manufacture any feeling. One has only to state the underlying circumstances of this Bill and the feeling bubbles forth of itself. It is for that reason, and because we feel that this is a hopeless way of treating grown-up people in 1949, that we oppose this Bill and we shall oppose any further inroads on the liberties of the people of this country.

4.13 p.m.

Mr. James Hudson: The Bill to which we are now giving a Third Reading is one that stirs in our minds varying emotions, and I find it even more difficult than the Parliamentary Secretary to avoid what might be called pre-disposed and dogmatic views about the situation before us. Yet I hope to manage to avoid those views by stating simply, as I see it, that the Bill before us proposes to do that which is at bottom a great public evil and which has formerly been done by private enterprise. In response to the questions of the right hon. and learned Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe) about the respective merits of private enterprise and public enterprise as applied to the supply of drink, I should say at once that, the thing being in itself bad, then from my point of view, whether it is private enterprise or public enterprise, the same evils will be experienced as a result of it.
In the discussions which took place during the Second Reading of the Bill I felt that hon. Members generally spoke as though they were dealing with something like a water board. The pride that was expressed by some of my hon. Friends in the capacity of a public authority to put out the right sort of beer gave me the impression that they were discussing the matter as though it were water. [HON. MEMBERS: "So it is."] Yes, but it is not
Honest water which ne'er left man in the mire.
This is a thing in which, over many generations, the State has found it necessary to devise the most careful regulations and watchfulness in order to prevent public disorders and defects which would inevitably have been the consequence if that care had not been shown. We have not suddenly lived out of a situation which has been constant in this respect, certainly since the days of Henry VIII. We have not lived out of that necessity for watchfulness simply because we have a teetotal Home Secretary. Indeed, we have a teetotal Home Secretary, but unless the House of Commons is watchful in this matter he may prove himself just as defective as a Home Secretary who takes an entirely different point of view about this evil.
Since the discussions which took place on Second Reading there have been, with respect to the nationalising proposals—that is, the proposals by which national authority under the Home Secretary is to become responsible in the new towns—very considerable modifications and, I should like to admit, improvements effected by the Amendments which have been carried. I am particularly glad of the commitments which the Home Secretary has accepted with reference to the local advisory committees. I agree, for example, that if a general survey is made in each district where drink is in future to be supplied under national authority by those who are living on the spot and who know the consequences of any disorders that may follow from too much drinking, then there will at least be a check of sorts placed on the conduct of this enterprise.
Indeed, the promise of the Home Secretary is that not only shall local authorities and the benches of magistrates

be represented on such local advisory committees but, if the town corporations provide for it—and I expect they will provide for it under the advice and general stimulus that will come from the Home Secretary—then all manner of organisations which have the public welfare at heart may secure representatives on the advisory committees and may, by that means, bring to bear in each locality not only a demand for intoxicating liquor but in many cases a demand for precisely the opposite sort of thing.
For example, under the terms of this Bill as it is now before us there may be in localities, if the advisory committees so advise and press, temperance hotels, cafes and centres of social welfare where there may be no intoxicating beverages at all. There may also be, in places where intoxicating beverages are sold, such provisions as now exist in Carlisle where there is, say, a room where no intoxicating beverages are provided and where workers in the local industries may procure a meal free of any temptation—and certainly there is temptation to the apprentices from the local industries—to indulge in intoxicating beverages. I regard that as a good thing. I am thankful to the Home Secretary that he has made that provision possible and I am thankful to the Committee which was responsible for piloting it through. I am thankful to that Committee, and to hon. Members on both sides, that the proposal for an advisory committee was accepted in the broader aspects suggested by the Home Secretary. I am sorry it did not go a step farther, but I cannot discuss that because it is not in the Bill.
I am pretty certain that, as the years go on and we gather experience, it will be seen that it would have been a good thing if another proposal of mine had also been accepted—namely, that the local inhabitants should be consulted directly. That provision is not in the Bill. I hope that at some future time we shall make provision to that effect in legislations similar to this. I have also to thank the right hon. Gentleman, and the Committee that dealt with the Bill—for there was no strong opposition to this provision—that in the public houses in future there shall be employed no one under 18 years of age. That provision, to my mind, is in itself a charge against the evil of drink. It is a recognition that in trading in drink


there is a definite temptation put in the way of young persons—a temptation that ought to be avoided. I am glad that hon. Members opposite, as well as the Home Secretary and the Government, have taken the responsibility for saying that there shall be no one under 18 on either side of the bar in a public house. Customers under 18 were ruled out years ago. Now suppliers under 18 are ruled out also.
I am also glad that the mistake of Mr. Gladstone is to disappear through this Bill—the grocers' licence. In the new towns there will be no opportunity to obtain grocers' licences and druggists' licences. That is an advantage. I must again thank hon. Members opposite for having taken their part in making this provision.

Mr. Keenan: My hon. Friend will get them to sign the pledge next.

Mr. Hudson: So much the better. However, my hon. Friends may leave the Opposition to me. They have no need to object to the line I am now taking, and I am paying them all the compliments I can.
There is one very serious issue about which I should like to hear a little more from the Home Secretary, and that is what he proposes to do under the Bill. Will he give us any clear indication of what he is going to do with the national committee, the control board, which, presumably, he has taken over, since the scheme of Carlisle is now to be associated with the scheme of this Bill. The Board at the moment consists of two brewers, two representatives of the Home Office—very distinguished representatives, I agree—and, I think, two other individuals. Is that to be the sort of board the Home Secretary will be satisfied to accept as his advisers in the scheme? I observe that the Home Secretary nods his head disapprovingly. I shall be glad to have a clear statement that that board in its present form is not to be the sort of board to be accepted.
I am sorry that during our discussions of the Bill we have dropped what was in the Bill originally, a provision to include adjacent areas. I am most sorry of all that we have included in the Bill during its consideration the provision that places in London shall have the

opportunity to open drinking facilities until 2 and 2.30 in the morning. I am not going to repeat the arguments I used on Report and in Committee, but I believe this is a very gross defect in the Bill. I think it has worsened the chances of the Bill's acceptance, even with some enthusiasm, by organisations of social welfare and by the churches, that have been modifying their views very considerably as the Debates on the Bill have gone on. The Home Secretary's insistence on drinking in London until 2 and 2.30 in the morning has gravely upset a great many people who otherwise would have been much more on his side. I would say to him that, having put his foot on the slippery path as far as drink is concerned, he is hurtling at a rather rapid rate downwards.
His hon. Friend brought in with very little notice the proposal that Kensington magistrates should permit drinking to a later hour at night. They for years, after hard fighting on behalf of a good cause, have managed to keep the drinking hours of London, so far as they could direct them, at 10 o'clock, even though they saw other people slipping away into later hours. The Home Secretary has now given the opportunity for all their good work to be negatived, and Kensington will lose its earlier hours, and must take the later hours of other contiguous areas. I believe that further slipping will overtake even this good Home Secretary, who is a teetotaller in his heart, because he has managed to believe that good can be done in London by boozing until 2 in the morning. [Laughter]. Yes, that is the reality of the situation.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): Would my hon. Friend mind giving me the reference for his quotation of me, because I have no recollection of saying anything like that. I have not insisted that anybody should drink. I do not insist on anybody's drinking. I advise my hon. Friend to follow my example.

Mr. Hudson: I meant that the Clauses in the Bill will compel everybody to drink. However, I withdraw that remark. I say, however, that my right hon. Friend gives opportunities for drinking to those who are really a nuisance. He himself felt they were a nuisance when he first brought in the Bill, because he insisted then on doing something about


these night clubs. He has changed his mind under the pressure put upon him. All I can tell him is that he has lost a very considerable amount of reasonable support that would have helped him in the general conduct of the Bill.
My right hon. Friend's proposal to remodel the drinking facilities in the new towns is a challenge to me, for I have never wanted an extension of the Carlisle system. I have never had it satisfactorily proved to me that that system has contributed to the sobriety of the nation, although many who were enthusiasts about it thought that it would and that it has. I admit that it could be made to play a greater share if it is carefully watched. If the advisory committees watch the scheme of the Bill carefully, and if those are appointed to them who ought to take on this responsibility—members of the churches and of social welfare associations, as well as others—I believe that the advisory committees may do a great deal of good. I am recommending, wherever I can, the churches and social organisations to take their part on these committees. I think that may lead to an improvement in the situation.
I wish that I could have sat down with a full note of enthusiasm, and without thinking of the night clubs in London and of the weakness of the Home Secretary in yielding when he might have been strong. I wish that I could have done that. I would then have known that I was helping the Labour Government in a way in which, I believe, the Home Secretary would like it to be helped by the great mass of church members and others who are seriously concerned that this evil of drink, so long an evil in the life of the community, should be watched with due care by Parliament and the Government in every legislative step that is taken.

4.31 p.m.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: I think that the whole House will regret that the hon. Member for West Ealing (Mr. J. Hudson) was unable to sit down happy. Whether we disagree with him or not, I am sure that we all like to see him happy, because he enjoys himself so much when he puts his case and we enjoy listening to him, even when we do not agree with his remarks. I do not wish to disturb him on the matter of night clubs. I

do not propose to say anything about that aspect, except that I think that the compromise proposals which the Home Secretary has put forward are the best that can be devised at the present time, if and when everybody can understand them. I must admit that during the later part of the Report stage there was some possible self-contradiction apparent in the words used by the right hon. Gentleman. If the position is clarified and the words as they stand in the Bill now really are the words which we had explained to us on the first round and not on the second round, then I think that the compromise is a satisfactory one on the whole.
Nor would I say much about the second part of the Bill. There are some serious, intricate, and touchy problems there, and I believe that, on the whole, largely as a result of Committee pressure and criticism, we have managed to improve the Measure very considerably, It is to the first part of the Bill that I should like to turn my attention for a few minutes. It is there that I find the most extraordinary advertisement of the fact that the Home Secretary must have had a very unpleasant battle with his right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council.
When the Lord President addressed us in the Second Reading Debate he made perfectly clear that in his mind the Bill proposed to do certain specific things. All I can say is that to all the three main points which the Lord President put forward, the Home Secretary has now provided in the Bill complete and absolute contradiction. I should like to examine the first part of the Bill from that aspect. In the Second Reading Debate, the Lord President said that he had been depressed and the House had been depressed by the preposterous claims that His Majesty's Government in the future were going to control the type of landlord
and that the Government are presuming the right to prescribe what should be drunk and how it should be drunk.
He ended his sentence with the words,
What nonsense.
If it was the Lord President's view that it was nonsense, I can only say that one has only to look at Clauses 1, 2 and 3 and the First Schedule to the Bill to see that the Home Secretary has done exactly what the Lord President said was nonsense. He made it clear, without any


possibility of doubt, that he and his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland could in fact, and do propose in fact, to prescribe what should be drunk, how it should be drunk and when it should be drunk, exactly in those terms. Nothing could be more specific. I do not know what happens at the private meetings between the Home Secretary and the Lord President, but I hope that the next time they meet—and I assume they do on the most friendly grounds—there will be some arrangement about that matter. Nothing could be more unfortunate than that there should be a big Government split on the question of liquor. There are lots of other subjects on which there could be a Government split.
To take another test, as to whether the contents of the Bill comply with the requirements of the Lord President, the Lord President said:
They"—
that is to say, the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Scotland—
were in the difficulty that the public houses do not exist in these new towns, because the new towns do not exist. …
The Home Secretary was therefore saying that there were no public houses in the new towns, and we need not do anything about it. In Clause 4 of the Bill, the Home Secretary says now that there are public houses in the new towns already, and that that is the way he proposes to deal with them. It is quite true that, as a result of the persuasive powers of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe) and others, the Home Secretary has been persuaded to deal more kindly with the tenants, managers, and so on, of such houses if, in fact, he sees the necessity of taking them over.
When one looks at Clause 4 it seems almost impossible to imagine that the Lord President expected to find it in the Bill, because he denied the existence of these very houses which are now set out, and even at that time were set out, in the Bill. I am not surprised that many Members were misled by the words of the Lord President in winding up the Second Reading Debate. They were in some difficulty because, according to the Lord President, the public houses had no existence in the new towns. I hope that the Home Secretary will be able to resolve that little difference with his right hon. Friend.
I now come to the third test which I should like to apply. Again in the same speech, the Lord President said, concerning licences and so on:
The arrangements ought to be fitted into the general requirements of the new towns and in a way where we can get the maximum of private social enterprise. …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th December, 1948; Vol. 459, c. 1135–6.]
I test the Bill for that requirement of the Lord President. In fact, does the Bill supply the maximum freedom to exercise maximum private social enterprise? I would say that the Bill, as it stands, in every relevant Clause absolutely and flatly denies the possibility of any private social enterprise in the supply of liquor in the State management districts. Nothing could be more clear and distinct than that. Yet how is it that the Bill was put through, with that description by the Lord President, and is now before us on Third Reading without any explanation from the Lord President himself? If it was the aim of the Government to frame the Bill in such a way that the maximum of private social enterprise could be exercised, the Bill is a miserable failure. Private social enterprise, indeed—it might be something one had never heard of if one studied this Bill and this Bill alone.
The Under-Secretary, in his opening speech this afternoon, made one remark which I thought almost shocking. He claimed that it was necessary in this Bill to extend the system of State management because over the last 25 years Royal Commissions and various other public bodies had reported in favour of its extension. That was the background he put to this Measure. I deplore that sort of statement from the Government Front Bench at the stage of Third Reading, when we have threshed out this matter to some considerable degree in Standing Committee, in short snappy speeches from myself and in long, although most welcome, utterances from the Home Secretary. I should have thought that at this stage that particular issue would be fully understood.
If the Under-Secretary claims that his justification for the introduction of this Bill, and for the finalising of it in this form, is 25 years of recommendation from Royal Commissions and other public bodies, how can he possibly justify the application of this Bill at this stage to Scotland, where exactly the reverse has


been our experience? If recommendations from public bodies are claimed as justification for England, surely recommendations from public bodies can be claimed as justification against applying the same system to Scotland. If the system is to be applied to Scotland, it is fundamentally wrong that it should be applied through this Bill. It is a shocking thing that Scotland should be included in this Bill. I said in Committee, and I am not ashamed to repeat it now, that I look upon it as an insult to the whole of the work that has been done in Scotland on their licensing system and the general management of the liquor trade; I think it deplorable that this Government should now steamroller out of existence all the good work that has been done, and should discourage the continuance of that sort of work in the future.
I consider that we lack something else in considering this Bill this afternoon, and that is the assistance of any hon. Member representing the Liberal Party. In Committee we discussed freedom, in different shapes and forms, at some considerable length, and even there we were, I think completely, denied the assistance of the Liberal Party, whose Members talk so much on that issue, but who, when it comes to a job of work, seem to become even queerer than they are generally. All those who are interested in maintaining the freedom of the individual in this country should be opposing this Bill, and hotly opposing it here on Third Reading this afternoon. If those who claim to be the friends of freedom deny us their services I can only believe that they put the value of their services so low that they hardly think it worth while attending. That may be a possible explanation.
Finally, I oppose this Bill because I think it is an unnecessary interference with the freedom and liberty of the subject in this country. I oppose it because I believe, not that it is a general threat for the nationalisation of all public houses in the country, but because I believe it to be one of those laboratory experiments to which Governments of the type under which we now suffer are committed, and of which they appear to be so fond. They would put human beings under experimental tests—[Laughter.] The Home Secretary may laugh, but that is exactly what happens. I could quote, as could the right hon. Gentleman, from the

Second Reading Debate arguments which he and his right hon. Friend the Lord President used, showing that the populations of these new towns supply suitable means for social experiments. That is exactly what is being done. The laboratory type of experiment in which the human being is treated as a rabbit is anathema to me, and for that reason I oppose the Bill.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Braddock: During the Report stage I heard the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Orr-Ewing) make a suggestion which was new to me; that it was the duty of anybody attending the Report stage to read what had taken place in Committee. That may be true, but it seems to be adding a new terror to political life when it is suggested that we should gravely go through what are called the "short snappy speeches" about which we have heard this afternoon. I recommend the hon. Gentleman to read his own Committee speeches. In all honesty, I think that would be a very good training for him; it would make the punishment fit the crime.
The hon. Member seemed to suggest that private social enterprise would give us everything we wanted for dealing with the liquor and licensing trade. But in a country such as ours, in a democratic community, where all people, quite rightly, like to have a say in the affairs of the community, there is at any rate some room for public social enterprise as well as private social enterprise. It was because this Bill seemed to give some opportunity for a development of that democratic idea that I welcomed it when it was introduced. All the discussion that has taken place in the House and in Committee, when the Debates are carefully read and analysed, show that this Bill gives the people an opportunity of themselves dealing with what is, after all, a very difficut problem. We have only to look through the history of past legislation to see what trouble this trade has been and has given to our people.
This Bill may also help us to take further steps in bringing the public house back to what it was originally intended to be; not a place for making profit; not a place for assisting the Government to collect taxes; but a place where people could meet together for social intercourse,


could talk to one another, and could enjoy themselves when their day's work was over. It is a great pity that the brewery trade, intent on profit-making, has been able to combine with the State in ruining, in my opinion, what should be a great national and public institution. I believe this Bill to be a further step in reforming the present position and in bringing the public house back to what it should be.
There is no doubt that this Bill, coming as it did without being mentioned in the King's Speech, caused a certain amount of surprise, and a great deal of alarm among the brewery interests. Even before the Bill was printed, Members of Parliament were getting telephone messages, telegrams and postcards suggesting that the Government had in mind the nationalisation of the drink trade. In those circumstances, when these matters were brought forward before the contents of the Bill were known, it is not surprising that there were certain misapprehensions.
Many Members on this side of the House have been accused by Members opposite that we have misled our constituents in regard to this Bill and that we have made pledges which have not been carried out. During the Report stage I happened to come into the House and to my astonishment heard my name given as one of the people who, in particular, had made a blunt statement deceiving my constituents. Some words of mine, which I thought came from a newspaper report of a speech of mine, were quoted by the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter). He stated I had said:
There is no proposal before the House to interfere with existing public houses."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th May, 1949; Vol. 464, c. 1764.]
He added that that statement lacked nothing in clarity. It is unfortunate that the hon. Member did not read all of that statement, which I now assume comes from one of my letters. I do not know whether he had the letter; I am hoping that he did not have it, because I am perfectly certain that with his legal training he would not have made a statement of that sort without having the complete letter before him. I can only assume that some one sent a snippet from one of my letters which he unfortunately read to the House.
I was given no notice that this matter was to be brought up, although I have told the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames and the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Orr-Ewing), who is also concerned in this matter, that I intended raising this question this afternoon—I am glad to see that both are present today. I had no opportunity, at the time, of consulting my papers, but I was told afterwards by the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare that this extract was contained in one of my letters. I went through my letters very carefully as I was accused of deceiving my constituents. I assume that it was a letter written in reply to a petition from public houses in my area, but I could not find that statement in any one of them. I may have missed the letter concerned, and if so I should be glad to know which it was.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I can assist the hon. Member. The extract is from a letter he wrote on 10th December, 1948, to Mr. G. C. Hyem, 22, Bramcote Court, Cricket Green, Mitcham, Surrey.

Mr. Braddock: If the hon. Member had allowed me to continue, I was about to say that after my research I assumed that the extract came from that letter, which is a private letter sent by me to one of my constituents in a reply to a letter from him. I am not objecting to this letter being quoted. I am always very glad to receive letters from my constituents. I was particularly glad to receive this interesting letter. The unfortunate thing about it was—and this would have made the letter even more interesting—that the gentleman concerned did not tell me that he was interested in the brewing and licensing trade—it would have added to the value of the letter had I known that.

Mr. Peter Thorneycroft: Would that have made any difference to the hon. Member?

Mr. Braddock: It would not have made any difference. I always value information coming from experts I know, and it would have added to the value of this letter if my constituent had told me his interest. I will read to the House what I wrote to my constituent, and Members can then contrast it with what


the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames and the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare said:
There is no proposal before the House to interfere with existing public houses. All the Government is doing is to take powers to allow public control of public houses in new towns.
I suggest that the complete quotation should have been given, which makes it perfectly clear that the Government intended to take these powers and that I was in agreement with them. It is unfortunate that our proceedings have been marred by an incident of this sort. I would remind Members opposite of the old saying that he who sups with the devil should use a very long spoon.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: Is that why the hon. Member votes so frequently against the Government?

Mr. Braddock: I should be glad to go into that if the question were put to me. Obviously the hon. Member has brought up that point because he is in an unenviable position—I do not wonder that some of our faces are looking very red. I suggest that Members should remember this saying and that when they get representations from people interested in this matter they should examine them very carefully before passing them on to the House. I have no objections to what Members opposite may say about myself. I should feel that I was in a very unfortunate position as a representative of my constituency if I were receiving approval from Members opposite. I say that Members opposite who attempt to deceive the House and the country in this way should get up and apologise to the House for the mistake they have made.

4.56 p.m.

Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: I think that the kindest course we can take is to leave the hon. Member for Mitcham (Mr. Braddock) to his own constituents. He has told us that his letter was incompletely quoted, but when he read it in extenso it still gave an entirely false picture of the proposals under this Bill.

Mr. Braddock: I have read the relevant paragraph of the letter, but if the hon. and gallant Member wants the whole of the letter I am quite willing to read it.

Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: I am saying that the relevant part of the letter he has read is still misleading. The hon. Member added the illuminating comment that the letter quoted was a private one, leaving us to draw the conclusion that in his view it is perfectly proper to give improper information in a private letter. Therefore, I say that the good people of Mitcham will have an opportunity at an early date to deal with their Member.

Mr. Austin: The hon. and gallant Member seems to be impugning the honesty of my hon. Friend. Perhaps he would care to comment on the ethics of the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) in quoting the contents of a letter to one of my hon. Friend's constituents?

Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: My hon. Friend is hopeful of catching Mr. Speaker's eye later in the proceedings, and he is more than capable of dealing with either the hon. Member for Mitcham or the mute, inglorious Member for Stretford (Mr. Austin).
Bills are usually introduced for one of three reasons; first, to implement a pledge in an election manifesto; secondly in response to some popular demand, and thirdly—and all Governments have been guilty from time to time of doing this—in the hope of attracting votes to Government candidates in a forthcoming appeal to the country. I submit that this Measure fails to qualify under any of these heads. Parts II and III have not excited any violent controversy. They went through the Committee quite smoothly and I cannot remember any Debate which reached any great heat. In my view they introduce one or two valuable reforms, not the least being the right hon. Gentleman's handling of the night club problem.
The hon. Member for West Ealing (Mr. J. Hudson), whose sincerity on this matter we all respect, painted a lurid picture of life in these establishments, describing them as haunts of vice and cesspools. The hon. Members for West Ealing and Merthyr (Mr. S. O. Davies) spoke with great force on this matter, but the description they gave of these night clubs and bottle parties was accurate only in so far as it gave a picture of what many clients visiting them for the first time expect to find, only to be disappointed. On the two occasions when I visited night clubs, shortly after the First World War,


when taking part in the process known as "seeing life," I came away with an impression, which has remained with me to this day, of the complete and utter boredom on the countenances of all present—clients, waiters, members of the orchestra and——

Mr. Walker: Was the hon. and gallant Member bored?

Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I will explain what my reactions were, in some detail if necessary.

Mr. J. Hudson: The hon. and gallant Gentleman said he went to night clubs twice. Why did he go the second time?

Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: Because, under a system of private enterprise, it is sometimes possible to obtain better service by going to a different establishment. I thought it worth a second venture. However, I hope hon. Members will not interrupt my autobiography too frequently, because the time for this Debate is limited.
I was saying that the look of complete and utter boredom on the faces of all present at these two establishments will be my lifelong impression. I mentioned clients, waiters and members of the orchestra, and I was about to add dance hostesses. It was not remarkable to find them fatigued, seeing that they had spent several hours revolving in a confined and restricted space, described as a dance floor, in the embraces of a succession of those who were described in those days as "tired businessmen," all of whom, I have no doubt, had rung up their wives to say that they were detained at their offices. But the description of the hon. Member for West Ealing of such establishments really does not fit in with any definition of haunts of vice or cesspools in point of fact. I cannot help feeling that many people who visit them, hoping to find these things, go away grievously disappointed. I support the Home Secretary, who tells us that for the people Who enjoy such experiences, facilities should be provided, as they are in other great capitals. Before passing on to more controversial subjects, may I say that the Home Secretary made a courageous and wise attempt to deal with what has been a grave problem?
When we come to Part I of the Bill, we enter into the chief area of controversy. Some improvements were made during the long Committee stage upstairs, due to the arguments used by the Opposition. There was, for instance, the right hon. Gentleman's retreat from the "adjacent areas." There was great anxiety not only on this side about that provision, but many of the right hon. Gentleman's supporters were anxious as to just how far that phrase could be used to extend the area of State ownership over a great part of the country. The right hon. Gentleman clarified his attitude considerably over the question of the establishment of State breweries, and said clearly that unless his new public houses in the new towns were subjected to something in the nature of a boycott, he did not propose to exercise the powers which he already possessed. That was a valuable statement. The right hon. Gentleman also clarified the position about mineral waters in a manner even more satisfactory.
We have had a denial today from the Treasury Bench, not for the first time, that this Measure is the thin edge of the wedge of the nationalisation of the brewing industry. If that is the case, we have to look a little further for what is the real motive behind the Bill which, make no mistake, has excited a great deal of opposition in the country, which was outside the Government's electoral mandate and which was not mentioned in the Gracious Speech at the beginning of the Session. What can be the motive?
I feel that it is not far to seek, and I want to submit to the House what I believe it to be. I believe that this Bill is chiefly desired in order to extend still further the frontiers of patronage by His Majesty's Government. After all, the General Election is beginning to cast its shadow over the House and without making any reference to the events of last Thursday, which may be unwelcome on the benches opposite, whatever happens in that Election there are hound to be heavy Government casualties. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about the by-elections?"] It is interesting to note that what I have just said has led to only one interruption, whereas a year ago it would have aroused jeers from all hon. Members opposite. Indeed, a shadow is falling upon them——

Mr. Nally: Win a by-election before talking like that.

Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: I am sure that when the results of the next Election are declared, and the hon. Member finds his party in a minority, he will be found mumbling to himself, "We never lost a by-election." Let him go on repeating it; let him enjoy his little day.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Bowles): All this has nothing to do with the Third Reading of the Bill.

Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: May I, with great respect, Sir, say that my observations were strictly relevant until I was interrupted? I was endeavouring to put forward what I believe to be the motive behind this Measure, and I was pointing out that I think it probable that there will be a number of Government casualties in the forthcoming General Election. The number of appointments available in the Bank of England, on the Coal Board and on the Transport Commission is limited, and can only be expected to cater for ex-occupants of the Treasury Bench. But here is a new and fruitful field—jobs for the boys in front; pubs for the boys behind. Let us admit that here at least are many admirably qualified for the task. One can picture the hon. Member for West Ealing as the jovial and smiling host of "The Silkin Arms." What travel-stained tourist could resist the irresistible lure of the hon. Member for the Exchange Division of Liverpool (Mrs. Braddock) in her new capacity as licensee of "The Red Dragon," where doubtless, at closing time, all the customers would be invited to participate in a lively jig——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. and gallant Member must go no further along these lines.

Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: I was about to remark, Sir, that although I believe these to be the only concrete consequences likely to emerge from this Measure, even these remarkable possibilities cannot reconcile me to approval of the Third Reading. I say to the Home Secretary, whose sense of humour is one of his strongest assets, that legislation which arouses the antagonism of the electorate is bad, but that that which excites

ridicule is worse. I urge right hon. and hon. Members opposite to think twice, indeed thrice, before giving a Third Reading to so fatuous and factious a Bill as this.

5.10 p.m.

Mr. Bing: The hon. and gallant Member for Holderness (Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite) has, so far, given only one reason why we should oppose the Third Reading of this Bill. His reason is that it extends the frontiers of patronage. I can quite see why he did not adopt the argument of his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe), because to have done so would have put him in very considerable difficulties on the point which he will no doubt seek to argue at some later stage. The hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Orr-Ewing) suggested that the disadvantage of this Bill was that it interfered with the freedom of the individual. I am sorry the hon. Member is not here so that he could tell us which individual—whether the Bill interfered with the freedom of the consumer or the freedom of the landlord and the publican.
The right hon. and learned Member for West Derby put forward a number of arguments with which I will deal, in the absence of the hon. Member to whom I have referred. I have not recorded his words on Third Reading, but I think that they more or less reproduced what he said in the Second Reading Debate. He then said that the real reason why hon. Gentlemen opposite opposed this Bill was that it sought:
to deprive a large section of the people of this country of what should be their inalienable heritage, the right of choosing their own draught beer."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th December, 1948; Vol. 459, c. 1043.]
Let me ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman one question. How does he propose, by opposing this Bill, to give them that right? What he would do would be to substitute in the new towns public houses tied to sell one kind of beer for State houses which will be free to sell all kinds of beer. How can that be a reason for opposing this Bill?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: The answer, as the hon. Gentleman appreciates is twofold. In the first place, in respect of such houses as are tied, there would be houses of different brewers, and the customer


would therefore be able to make his choice. The second limb of the answer is that, with regard to the State public house, there are very few—I did not know that there were any but I accept the statement of the Home Secretary that there are one or two—in the State management area where one can get draught beer, as opposed to bottled beer, of any kind, except the State brewed beer.

Mr. Ede: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman think that the State brewery at Carlisle will be able to supply all the public houses in all the new towns?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: The right hon. Gentleman has power to acquire breweries.

Mr. Bing: If I may follow what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said, firstly, so far as the point about free houses is concerned, there are none in any of the areas which are being included in the new towns at the moment. Therefore, that question does not arise. There are only 700 of them in the whole country. As regards the ordinary towns, the right hon. and learned Gentleman said something about the North of England. I have not been able to document myself about the North, but I can give figures in regard to Nottinghamshire.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman complained that was not sufficiently documented. Let us take the villages and let me give him the routes and places. The Worksop Brewery, taking Route A 57, have the "Queen and the Crown" at Markham and the "Sun" at Darlton. One goes on to Dunham and there one finds the "Swan" run by the Worksop Brewery. What the right hon. and learned Gentleman would do by opposing this Bill would be to provide that, in new towns, one would have only one sort of beer instead of the various sorts offered by my right hon. Friend. The reason this Bill arose at all was because the brewers were not able to agree as to what their private empires would be. One side said that they should be entitled to supply all the new towns because the people would be going there from their areas. The others said that would not be possible, because this was in the empire laid down by some agreement which they had reached.
The second argument which the right hon. and learned Gentleman put forward was, if he will excuse me again quoting from his Second Reading speech, as I did not make an absolutely accurate note of what he said this afternoon—it was more or less the same—was:
What is ensured is that, in these areas, the potential of future competition will be swept away and the hand of the State left alone."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th December, 1948; Vol. 459, c. 1044.]
If the right hon. and learned Gentleman had included in his brief—it is an omission that I cannot quite understand—the more recent advertisements of the Brewers' Society, he would have seen that they are all out against competition. These advertisements explain that the fine quality of the beer we enjoy at the moment is due to the absence of any competition, which they ensure by a tied house system. What I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman objects to, is the second part of the point he made on Second Reading, which I have quoted—the "hand of the State"—and only if we were to substitute the "hand of the brewer" would be think that the position was quite satisfactory.
After all competition is not only between one public house and another but between the suppliers of each public house. One of the most valuable things which the Home Secretary's Measure will ensure is a free market for the suppliers of mineral waters and the suppliers of wines and spirits. Owing to the existence of these houses in the new towns, the stranglehold over this trade will be broken. Let me give an example by quoting a letter which was written to me by a salesman-driver of a firm of mineral water manufacturers. He said of the system which the right hon. and learned Gentleman would fasten on the new towns if he had his way:
Whenever I received complaints from landlords of these houses regarding the quality, etc., of the mineral waters I passed them on to the manager of this firm and was invariably met with the remark 'Do not bother about them—they cannot do anything about it—they are tied to us.'
That is the system which the right hon. and learned Gentleman would substitute for what is proposed by the Home Secretary, a system under which there is no competition whatever.
Let me give him one other example by quoting a letter from a gentleman whose name I will not give because obviously he would be victimised if I did so. He operates in the vicinity of a proposed new town under the old dispensation which, if the right hon. and learned Gentleman were successful in his proposition today, we should restore in these new towns. He says:
For over 30 years I have been in practice as a valuer to the licensed trade anff have valued on behalf of tenants on the taking over of licensed houses in all parts of the country and have valued practically all the licensed houses in——
I will not specify the area but it is adjacent to one of the new towns. He continues:
A firm of brewers in this district tie their tenants in the following; draught ales, bottled beers, wines, spirits, cigarettes and tobacco, cider, lager beers, glassware, insurances, minerals, and at one time even sawdust was supplied, as the managing director was interested in a box-making concern. Regarding glassware, the managing director is a director of a concern who deals in glassware and public house sundries. Regarding insurances, the secretary of the brewery company is an agent as, according to the articles of association, the brewery are not registered to act as insurance brokers. Regarding minerals, the managing director is also a director of a local mineral water concern … if a tenant is not satisfied with his rateable assessment he is not allowed to appeal, as the company have previously agreed, with the local authority, the assessment.
So much for the freedom which the right hon. and learned Gentleman is anxious to restore and thinks could be restored to these new towns.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman went on to say, in his Second Reading speech, and he repeated it in his speech this afternoon, that the Home Secretary:
has the power to run hotels and teashops, the power to brew and the power to go in for the manufacture of soft drinks."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th December, 1948; Vol. 459, c. 1043.]
How very necessary these powers are is apparent when one considers how people have been treated when they do not possess them. Of course, the Home Secretary might be subject to the same blackmail and the same pressure which has been put on the owners of free houses and which has been introduced so as to squeeze out the small mineral water manufacturer. As I have said, one of the

great advantages of this Bill will be to give an outlet to people of that sort, and that will be a considerable advantage, among other things, in lowering the prices not only of intoxicants—I am sorry my hon. Friend the Member for West Ealing (Mr. J. Hudson) is not here—but non-intoxicants as well.
Let me illustrate this point for the benefit of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. Writing to me from the Midlands—I will not give the address of the writer because it might result in his victimisation—a mineral water manufacturer described to me how a brewery company had bought up 150 houses in a certain town. He said:
New agreements were drawn up by their new masters tying them to one particular firm for their purchase of mineral waters from whom the brewery company draw a royalty of about 3d. a dozen.
So much for the effect of the system which the right hon. and learned Gentleman would rivet on the new towns. It would give somebody an opportunity to take a rake-off of 3d. a dozen. What happens if somebody tries to supply a continuing need? Why, this: the same correspondent writes:
A house owned by another brewery company recently ran short of Guinness stout and my firm made a delivery at the request of the tenant to help them out. This came to the notice of the brewery company who sent a representative to see us and threatened that if this occurred again we should be prevented from supplying any of their houses with mineral waters.
Very naturally, to protect himself from this sort of grossly improper pressure, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary had to take these powers.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Ealing and my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham (Mr. Braddock) both raised the question of the sale of non-intoxicants, and this Clause is equally important from this point of view, because what should be recognised by hon. Members on both sides of the House is that the present arrangement, unlike the arrangement proposed in this Bill, definitely discourages the sale of non-intoxicants because the brewery company is only interested in making a rake-off on the sale of beer by obtaining what is known colloquially in the trade as the wet rent. Indeed, a tenant of one of these houses wrote to me and said:


Now if a house was 'free' a tenant could provide cups of tea or coffee like the A.B.C. or Lyons do. Can you imagine the brewers allowing the tenant to do so today?
I cannot imagine the brewers doing it, but who can suppose that the Secretary of State would prevent it?

Mr. Erroll: Did the brewer in question actually refuse to allow his tenant to supply cups of tea? Are we to listen to more of this claptrap?

Mr. Bing: The hon. Gentleman asked me two questions; first, whether the brewery company of this occasion actually refused to allow the supply of cups of tea, and secondly whether he is to listen to me any further. In reply to the second question, the answer is that the hon. Gentleman will have to listen to me for a little longer. In reply to the first question, I should like to refer the hon. Gentleman to a model agreement set out in the "Brewers' Almanac" which hon. Members Opposite ought to read—there is a new edition of it just out—before they enter into Debates of this sort. If they will look at it they will see that a tenant is not entitled to instal anything at all of that nature without the permission of the brewery company. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman could give me the name of one brewery company which has allowed a steam tea urn to be placed in a single house, I will give way to him now.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I would like to give the hon. Gentleman the benefit of the experience of Liverpool where all the brewers, including Bent's, Greenall's and every brewery which has a house in Liverpool, supplied teas as a matter of course.

Mr. Keenan: I should like to know where these places are.

Mr. Bing: Perhaps I can enlighten the right hon. and learned Gentleman on what generally happens, by quoting a case which was reported in the "Manchester Evening News" under the rather surprising title of "Ex-Licensee Kept Sandwiches Secret." This case came to light because it was a condition of this licensee's agreement with the brewers that he should obtain all his supplies from the brewery company who owned his hotel. Between 1941 and 1944 he managed to obtain some supplies from other breweries, and his wife began to supply

sandwiches without the permission of the brewer—a terrible offence. Unfortunately, he had to keep his profits from the brewery company, because if he disclosed the profits which he was making, he would have been in serious difficulties with the brewers for breach of his agreement. He therefore kept the profits secret, and he also kept them secret from the Income Tax authorities, which was, perhaps, unfortunate. As a result, the whole matter came to light. What is interesting is that the additional profit which he made from these illicit sandwiches in the course of three years was £7,500.
I do not want to delay the House too long because I hope and trust that we shall have another opportunity of discussing in this House the whole question of tied houses. Then, no doubt, the right hon. and learned Gentleman will be able to put the arguments which perhaps he will not have an opportunity of doing at this stage. I should like to deal with his final argument, which has not been produced with such force today, but which he certainly dealt with in his Second Reading speech, namely, that as many public houses are dreary and dismal places, the most progressive brewers should be encouraged. I should like to refer the right hon. Gentleman to his colleague in another place, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, the Chairman of Lloyds Bank and, I think I am right in saying, one of the staunchest supporters of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's party in another place. He has made a great study of this question, and he gave very valuable evidence before the Royal Commission on Licensing which sat in 1931. Therefore, before launching into any more of these attacks, hon. Members opposite might consult what an expert on their own side has to say on the matter.
I should like to quote a few remarks of Lord Balfour of Burleigh because they show the system which the right hon. and learned Gentleman would like to introduce in the new towns. He said:
Vis-è-vis the brewer, the retailer is in a position of dependence and almost complete helplessness.
The hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare said that the reason for opposing this Bill was because it did not give independence and it was against the freedom of the individual. That was his ground for asking for the rejection of


the Measure. He might think again when he has heard what Lord Balfour of Burleigh said on the independence granted to the tenant.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: The hon. Member's speech is completely at variance with the attitude of his own Front Bench who have assured us on more than one occasion, especially on Second Reading, that this is not a vindictive Bill and is not an attack on the brewers at all.

Mr. Bing: I am dealing with the undesirability of extending the system. The House will have another opportunity to decide whether there ought not to be some considerable control put on the brewers' activities generally, and whether we should not, for example, refer the whole of their practices to the Monopolies' Commission. That is quite a different question, and it would be out of Order for me to pursue it here. I am dealing only with the point made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman that this Bill is an attack on the individual, and I am saying that the publicans in the new towns will be saved from the circumstances described by one member of the Tory Party. Lord Balfour of Burleigh said, in his evidence before the Royal Commission, in 1930:
Vis-è-vis the brewer, the retailer is in a position of dependence and almost complete helplessness. The tied house system as a whole in the hands of the brewers is a tyrannical one, and the difficulties of the licensee are many and serious. The brewers are in business to sell their beer and to make their shareholders the maximum possible profit in the process …
That is a system which, not in the name of the brewers but in the name of the freedom of the individual, hon. Gentlemen opposite would like to impose on the new towns. In his memorandum Lord Balfour deals very thoroughly with the suggestion that if we only leave the brewers alone, there will be first-class buildings everywhere all over the country. He points out that the objects of the improvement in public houses are:
(1) To sell more beer.
(2) To meet the competition of the new attractions in social life.
(3) To suggest to the public that all will be well if only the brewers are left in peace to work out their own plan of reform.
There is something of an echo of what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said

in those words. Is not his suggestion that all would be well if the brewers were left in peace to work out their own plan of reform which—and these are Lord Balfour's words—
will incidentally secure the permanence of their own abounding prosperity.

Major Tufton Beamish: On a point of Order. I am interested in this argument, but I should like to know to what part of the Bill it refers.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: It is in reply to the speech made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe).

Major Beamish: In the Second Reading Debate?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: No, this Third Reading Debate.

Mr. Bing: I am sorry that the hon. and gallant Member for Lewes (Major Beamish) missed the early part of the Debate and the very valuable contribution made by the right hon. and learned Member for West Derby, because it will be of great value as a great declaration of policy when we come to discuss the whole question of tied houses. It would have been of value if more Members of the Party opposite had been here when the right hon. and learned Gentleman made that declaration on behalf of his party. I do not want to go back to that point now, but wish to conclude. Lord Balfour further stated:
It must never be forgotten that the house doing a large trade in nothing but drink is the most profitable for the brewery companies' shareholders.
Therefore, if one has got to decide what sort of a house one is going to eat in, it is better not to choose a house which is designed, as Lord Balfour said, to make immense profits out of the sale of beer, but to try to restore the old English inn. That is why I did not follow the hon. and gallant Member for Holderness (Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite) in his dissertation. What we on this side of the House want is the restoration of the old form of the traditional English inn. In this country we have got a great many forms of beer. I would like to see them as widely known and seen as possible, but in proper and decent conditions which would restore the old type of inn. We shall not restore that old type of inn if we are going to support a system in


Which great commercial monopolies erect huge barracks without thought of accommodation, without providing room for travellers, without providing catering facilities and the other things, and in which they can best do for their shareholders by selling the maximum amount of beer. I hope the House will give the Bill a Third Reading.

5.35 p.m.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The hon. Member for Horn-church (Mr. Bing) has given a very characteristic example of the two aspects of his Parliamentary technique. The first and most adroit—and which I sometimes admire—is the extremely able tour he has made around the inner perimeter of the Rules of Order; and secondly—and this I admire less—he has sought to buttress his case by a mass of allegations which have only one thing in common—neither date, name, place nor occasion is given in support of any one of them and it is, therefore, quite impossible for anyone who disagrees with him to check and verify them. That is precisely the technique which the hon. Gentleman applied to the Northern Ireland Government a few days ago, and this afternoon he has applied the identical technique and method to the brewers.

Mr. Bing: If the hon. Gentleman would not think me discourteous if I left the Chamber, I will go and fetch the Report of the Evidence given before the Royal Commission on Licensing and pass him the actual passage from which I quoted.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I do not wish to encourage the hon. Gentleman to make a second speech this afternoon. On his own responsibility he has made a speech to this House and uttered allegations in support of it. He has given no details and no opportunities for verification. It is no excuse, if he has quite deliberately done that—and it is not the first time he has done it in this House—to say subsequently that it had not occurred to him that it would be desirable to support his allegations by evidence. That is not good enough.

Mr. Bing: The hon. Gentleman ought to be, if anything, a little less unfair. When I was dealing with the point, I said it was from the evidence of Lord Balfour of Burleigh, which is contained in a rather bulky volume, just as the Debates

of the Northern Ireland House of Commons, for which I was criticised because I did not give the authority, were in a bulky volume, and I used the individual parts. If the hon. Gentleman is in any doubt and will bring in the volumes, I can show him the necessary passages.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The hon. Gentleman knows that I was not referring to the one part of his speech where he quoted his authority, Lord Balfour, but the case of the mineral water sales man-driver, the licensee somewhere in the North of England; and when he quoted the particulars, without any sort of admission——

Mr. Bing: rose—

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Wait a moment. The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that that was not what I was referring to. That was a solitary quotation, which can be checked up and about which there is no doubt at all. I have far too great a respect for the hon. Gentleman's acuteness of mind to believe for one moment that he thought I was referring to the one authority which he quoted rather than to the score of cases which he gave without any quotation whatever.

Mr. Bing: The hon. Gentleman is sometimes a little unfair. He must remember that these people possibly are liable to victimisation. There is one case of a person who would not be victimised and, therefore, I can give his name. He is Mr. A. A. Leedham, and his address is 37, John English Avenue, Braintree, Essex. If the hon. Gentleman is interested in dealing with the correspondence received by other hon. Members, he might care to write to him some time.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. No doubt he will tell us to what case he desires to attach the name and address he has given us. He has also given a number of other cases, and I am willing to give way if he wishes to help me by saying to which case this name is attached. I think that that is a sufficient demonstration of the hon. Gentleman's methods.
I will now proceed to reply, as he is entitled to a reply, to the hon. Member for Mitcham (Mr. Braddock), who took exception to certain observations—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for


Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) desires to intervene I believe that he is a sufficiently experienced Parliamentarian to do it on his feet. The hon. Member for Mitcham took exception to certain quotations made from a letter written by him and referred to during the Report stage of the Bill both by my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Orr-Ewing) and myself. Perhaps the hon. Member for Mitcham will allow me to say that I greatly prefer his attitude, in contrast to the attitude of some of his hon. Friends who also have given these pledges. He has had the moral courage to come forward and put his point of view upon the Bill. His attitude contrasts very favourably with that of certain of his hon. Friends, who have not done so.
What did the hon. Gentleman actually say? I would remind the House of the quotation itself. When I first quoted it, I paid the hon. Gentleman the compliment of saying that it was perfectly clear, and I now repeat that. The hon. Gentleman said:
There is no proposal before the House to interfere with existing public houses."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th May, 1949; Vol. 464, c. 1764.]
The hon. Gentleman dealt with that matter this afternoon. He began by referring to criticism of the Bill before it was printed. That observation presumably has no relevance to the hon. Gentleman's letter, which was written on 10th December, whereas the Second Reading Debate took place on 14th December. The Bill was in the hands of hon. Gentlemen some days before 10th December. The hon. Gentleman went on to say that he did not know that the person to whom he wrote the letter was connected with the liquor trade. I do not doubt the truth of that statement, but I somewhat question the relevance of the matter.
Does the hon. Gentleman's answer mean that if he had known that his correspondent was connected with the liquor trade he would have given the correspondent a different answer? Truth, proverbially, has many facets. Does the hon. Gentleman present a different facet of truth in accordance with the professional occupation of his correspondent? Then the hon. Gentleman took exception to the letter being quoted at all. It was a letter written by one of the hon.

Gentleman's constituents to him upon a public matter, and written to the hon. Gentleman in his capacity as a public man and the Parliamentary representative of his constituency. It was an attempt to elicit the hon. Gentleman's attitude and views upon a pending public matter. Does the hon. Gentleman desire to challenge my statement?

Mr. Braddock: If the hon. Gentleman will refer to the OFFICIAL REPORT tomorrow, he will find that I said that I took no exception to the quotation.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am very much obliged to the hon. Gentleman. I take it that the objection which he raised on the Report stage to the quotation of this letter is now withdrawn.

Mr. Braddock: The objection I make is to the hon. Gentleman's quoting only a snippet of the letter and not quoting the sentence following.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am coming to that point in due course, but it is necessary to take the hon. Gentleman's objections separately. I take it that the objection previously made to the quotation from this letter is now withdrawn. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is right that he should withdraw it. Constituents who correspond with their Members of Parliament on public matters are entitled, if dissatisfied with the reply, to communicate it to other people. It would be impossible if constituents who regarded a reply as being unsatisfactory could take no action at all because the reply was to be treated confidentially.

Mr. Braddock: The hon. Gentleman can keep on talking but he is not going to get away with this. I make no objection to the publication of that letter. I do not care what my constituent did with it.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The hon. Gentleman has it on record that he does not object to the publication of that letter. He would have saved a good deal of time if he had done so before. Now, as to the letter itself, and to the words which I quoted. Let us get them quite right. They were:
There is no proposal before the House to interfere with existing public houses.
All that the hon. Gentleman objects to is that the next sentence, which goes on to relate to public management for new towns, should have been added.

Mr. Braddock: Would the hon. Gentleman mind reading the exact words? He has them there.

Hon. Members: Be fair.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: It so happens that I did not get the words which the hon. Gentleman added. If he likes to supply them to me, I shall be grateful.

Mr. Braddock: Am I really to understand that the hon. Gentleman took a snippet from the letter and did not take the trouble to consult the full letter?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The literary style of the hon. Gentleman is no doubt so appealing that he would like to have the letter quoted in full. I am quoting the relevant passage and I challenge the hon. Gentleman here and now to say that there is anything whatsoever in that letter which qualifies the perfectly clear statement he made that there is no proposal before the House to interfere with existing public houses.

Mr. Braddock: I do not want to waste the time of the House. I have already read the passage and I recommend the hon. Gentleman to read it himself in HANSARD tomorrow.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The hon. Gentleman has already read the passage, he is good enough to say, and it is to be in HANSARD. It is clear that all hon. Gentlemen who heard agree that it does not qualify in the slightest the clear statement that there is no proposal before the House to interfere with existing public houses. The hon. Gentleman knows that perfectly well. He also knows that if he refers to Clause 3 (1, b) of the Bill, despite the efforts of hon. Gentleman on this side to take it out, he will find the power to interfere with existing public houses, not only in existing new town areas but in any area which in the future may be designated a new town, anywhere throughout the country. It is really no use the hon. Gentleman pretending that his statement was accurate. It could never have been made by anyone who had read and understood that subsection of the Bill. It was quoted on the Report stage, as I would remind the hon. Gentleman. He really came into the Debate without having heard it.
I say that not as an attack upon the hon. Gentleman's good faith but in reference to the complete lack of understanding

among some hon. Members opposite of the effect of the Bill, and of the fact that the Bill constitutes a direct attack upon the interest and livelihood of licensees of public houses, not only of every new town but of every future new town area. Widespread ignorance of what the Bill did gave rise to a great deal of misunderstanding in the country. There was a perfectly innocent and inadvertent attempt made by quite a number of hon. Gentlemen opposite to suggest to their constituents that the Bill did not do what it patently does.
There is only one other matter in the Bill to which I desire to refer. The Under-Secretary of State, in his delightful speech in which he seemed to combine the penetrating lucidity of the Foreign Secretary with the warm generosity of the Chancellor of the Exchequer—the Under-Secretary of State does not seem to appreciate the compliment—did not seem to realise that the real objection to Part I of the Bill is its automatic application to every new town as that town comes into being. Be the Carlisle experiment right or wrong—the hon. Gentleman seemed to think that opposition to the Bill was intended to be an attack upon the Carlisle experiment—it was aimed at a definite purpose. That purpose was the restricting of drunkenness in an area where drunkenness was rife in a vital war industry. That was a definite and specific objective.
We have not been told the objective behind Part I of this Bill. We have not been told the circumstances which it is assumed will exist in the present new towns and any areas on which the roving eye of the Minister of Town and Country Planning alights in the future. What is the common factor which has caused this instrument, which was aimed at a definite purpose in Carlisle, now to be applied widespread throughout the country? Is the objective that of Carlisle, restriction on drinking? We have not been told. Or is the objective the spread of public ownership and public management? We have not been told this. We have been given no explanation as to why it is that this method is to be applied automatically.
The other point on which we have not had a satisfactory answer, though I pressed the Home Secretary on the Report stage, is the bias disclosed by him in his attitude in the Schedule to the


method to be used should he decide to manufacture soft drinks or to brew beer. The House will recollect that the right hon. Gentleman has made a deliberate distinction. He has said that he will not make soft drinks unless he lays the Statutory Instrument by which he exercises the power to do so, thereby retaining Parliamentary control, but he has declined to include any similar safeguard in the case of the brewing of beer. The right hon. Gentleman has not given any satisfactory answer as to the reason for that difference in Parliamentary control.
In column 1811 of the OFFICIAL REPORT of 10th May, 1949, he said that there is a difference between a brewer and a soft drink manufacturer. To judge from their products these days, that distinction has become a rather narrow one. The right hon. Gentleman indicated that a brewer was a more powerful person than a soft drink manufacturer. If that is so, what reason does that give for diminishing Parliamentary control over the right hon. Gentleman in his dealings with brewers? It would be a valid argument for arming the right hon. Gentleman with greater administrative powers; it is no argument whatever for denying the House control over the right hon. Gentleman in his exercise of these powers. I am at a loss to see why the right hon. Gentleman persists in and insists upon this curious distinction. He indicated that there was adequate Parliamentary control by way of a Motion to reduce his salary even in the case of his starting a brewing industry. If there is already adequate control in that case, why the additional control by Statutory Instrument in the case of soft drinks? The right hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. Either there is more control over him in the case of soft drinks or there is not. If there is more control, why is there more control; and if there is not, the concession he made with so much geniality to the soft drinks industry is not worth the paper it is written on.
This point and a number of other points which my hon. Friends have in mind leave us profoundly dissatisfied with the Bill. No valid and reasonable explanation having been given even by the right hon. Gentleman who is admitedly the most persuasive exponent of Government policy on the Front Bench,

we are left to speculate as to the motives which the right hon. Gentleman and the Government of which he is so conspicuous an ornament have in mind. I cannot help feeling that the real explanation was given by the Lord President of the Council when he wound up for the Government on Second Reading and that precisely the same explanation is in the mind of the Government in pushing forward with the Iron and Steel Bill—it is yet another example of this Government's unfailing appetite for power.

5.55 p.m.

Mr. Nally: It is fair to remind the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) of a fact of which he had probably forgotten. I well remember that some time ago he rose to make a speech on a very serious matter into which I cannot go into detail, and he made very grave allegations about the conduct of a number of trade unionists. I asked him to give me the name of the person who had made those complaints and said that if he would, I would not only undertake to give all publicity to the disgraceful behaviour but that I would also guarantee, as I was then able to guarantee, protection for the men concerned. He took refuge in the fact that he could not give the name or any of the details because the man might be victimised. I thought that the hon. Gentleman sought a rather cowardly refuge, but he may have been right and I may have been doing him an injustice. My hon. Friend has original letters from people whose names are known, professional men connected with brewers, and if we gave their names the hon. Gentleman opposite could not guarantee them any protection whatsoever from the vengeance of those who employ them. Surely my hon. Friend is far more justified in refusing to give names than the hon. Gentleman was.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Does not the hon. Member distinguish in his mind between the necessity in one individual case to be a little cautious about the disclosure of names and the building up of a large case by the quotation of scores of examples in the case of none of which are particulars given? Will the hon. Member accept from me, I hope without discourtesy, the fact that it is possible for an hon. Member to doubt whether the hon. Member for Bilston (Mr. Nally) really has the power to protect people


from victimisation which he, no doubt genuinely, thinks he has?

Mr. Nally: That is the sort of answer to which junior reporters in county courts have to listen from third-rate barristers every day.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Especially when workers' interests are involved.

Mr. Nally: Referring to those letters, the hon. Member took to task my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham (Mr. Braddock), and he did so in what I considered a rather unfair way. He produced a part of a letter. He had not got the original letter by him. I put to him this direct question: Was the snippet of the letter which the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames quoted supplied to him by the Brewers' Society or one of its officials? [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I am putting a perfectly fair question to the hon. Member, and I will give way for him to answer it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] Apparently there is no answer. The truth is self-evident. It was supplied by the Brewers' Society.
What happened during the Committee stage and other stages of the Bill and what is no doubt happening today? Every day and sometimes oftener throughout the proceedings on this Bill the Opposition have been supplied with a continual rain of documents from the Brewers' Society defending the brewers' interests. There is not a shadow of doubt about it. The House knows it and the country ought to know it. There have been certain notable exceptions among hon. Gentlemen opposite. Throughout the proceedings on the Bill the right hon. and learned Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe) has been completely sincere about every point of view he has advanced. In justice to him I am bound to say that throughout the proceedings the only motives which have actuated him in consideration of the Bill have been the best, most honest and sincerest motives, although we may disagree with him. It is right that a brewers' party should choose a good and honest man behind whom to hide itself when it is passing a Bill of this kind.

Mr. Beverley Baxter: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in speaking so harshly of the brewers, he is attacking the Under-Secretary who

comes from a most distinguished brewing family?

Mr. Nally: That is perfectly true. I would only say to the hon. Gentleman, as a journalist who once reported me as speaking in South Hammersmith when I was never even there, he——

Mr. Baxter: rose—

Mr. Nally: As a journalist who did that, he should never interfere in this House on points that involve accuracy of recollection.
The technique of the Opposition in this matter throughout has been one that many of us have met at various times. They take a Bill, as the Licensing Bill is being taken at this stage, they then make a complete caricature of it in whole or part, and then they deliver a completely convincing reply to something which never existed anywhere except in their own imaginations. In this Debate the Opposition have to a large extent concentrated upon that. We have had, particularly in the case of the new towns, with which I am primarily concerned, a campaign, continued this afternoon, of the most vicious misrepresentation as to the implication of this Bill upon the lives of ordinary people. Whenever the hearts of the Opposition are breaking on behalf of the brewers, we can always rest assured that they will get up with a sob in their throats about the people. They have been doing it for generations, and they are doing it now.
The truth is that the brewing industry has an uneasy conscience about its position in relation to the people of this country. What it has done in relation to this Bill, and what some of the least reasonable members of the Opposition did this afternoon, was to exaggerate and caricature the case only to discover that they had done precisely what my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) and two or three of us had wanted them to do, to create a situation where we could push forward with other ideas we have had for some time, about dealing with the brewers. They were kind enough to incite that public interest which will enable us to proceed with what we have in mind, but which it would be out of Order for me to go into in any detail now.
There was quite a simple issue in the case of the new towns. It was, broadly,


what is in the Bill, or on the other hand, the brewers. The Opposition in this matter stand for the brewers—I do not think they deny it—for they are primarily in matters of politics, brewers' men. We are told that this affects the freedom of the licensee as well as of the public in new towns. On the Committee stage, I asked the Opposition if there was a single Member—by that time their shirt fronts had been soaked with tears about the death of liberty in the new towns—who had raised his voice at any time in his own constituency to protest when a free house was taken over by a brewery combine. History should note that there was a voice. It was one of the voices on the Opposition side to which I like to listen because it talks good sense. It was that of the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Hollis) and his name should be blazoned in letters of gold in every public house, for he was the only Conservative Member of that Committee who could honestly say that in his own constituency, he has fought the efforts of a brewer to take over free houses. The sooner he is over here with us the better.

Mr. Hollis: While I am flattered at the suggestion that my name should be put up in letters of gold in every public house, that was not the precise question which the hon. Member asked me, though I forget exactly what it was.

Mr. Nally: That is a matter of record, but whatever the terms of the question, I felt bound to say that the answer of the hon. Member pleased me much, and when we move on to other matters, we are perfectly prepared to find him a seat.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: rose—

Mr. Nally: I am always willing to give way where I think that an interjection would serve a useful purpose, but having heard the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Orr-Ewing) wasting our time earlier, I see no reason why he should waste mine when I am making a speech.
The other point made by hon. Members of the Opposition was that they claimed a victory in making certain improvements to the Bill. I should be the last to withhold from any Member of this House, irrespective of party, the right to claim pride in having effected improvements

in a Government Bill. On occasions, the Opposition have made a substantial improvement, and we are grateful to them, but there must be no misunderstanding about this. There has not been a major improvement made in this Bill affecting the right to security of tenure of the licensee, or the question of adjacent areas, where there has not been as much pressure from Labour benches, and consultation with the Minister concerned, if not more than from the other side. Nevertheless there will be a claim advanced on the weekend platforms that in the defence of the little people, the Opposition are the knights in shining armour and we are the wicked grinders of the faces of the poor, including the poor licensee. On the question of adjacent areas, there were two speeches made. One was made by the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield (Air-Commodore Harvey) who was a most constructive Member of the Committee, and one was made by myself. The Minister accepted our proposals.
There was one other aspect of the Bill to which the Opposition might have directed itself. We are dealing here with a position in the new towns where public houses are to be taken over under a form of State control. If the Opposition are so deeply devoted to the cause of the poor licensee and his wife and children, I should have thought they would examine this Bill with care to see that under it the possibility would be that licensees coming under the control of my right hon. Friend, would get an infinitely better deal than they would do under the brewers, under whose control they have operated previously. I will undertake to say that, within two years of this Bill becoming effective in any new town, in security of tenure, in conditions of service, in methods of working, the licensees there under this Bill will be infinitely better off than their neighbours who are still under the brewers and so of course will the customers.
Here, if I may say so, I had an idea that the right hon. and learned Member for West Derby—so rightly busy is he in trying to provide the Opposition with some semblance of honest political leadership—has not been in local pubs lately. I can remember a time when I could legitimately go at the age of 18 into


local pubs in parts of the country, Lancashire, Durham and Northumberland where there was the choice not only of brewers but very often in the same public house, if it was a large village, there was the choice of two or three kinds of beer. That situation has ended and has been ending in all the new town areas. One by one, the great octopuses, so to speak, of the brewery industry have taken free legitimate enterprise in public houses by the throat and strangled it. There was never a word of protest from the Opposition in all that long and painful process.
I ask the House to give the Bill an enthusiastic Third Reading. It is not a gigantic Bill. It is a Measure of common sense and decency, not only for the decent public, the ordinary publican and the ordinary licensee, but is the first really effective step to free Britain from the stranglehold of the brewers.

6.11 p.m.

Mr. Marlowe: The speech of the hon. Member for Bilston (Mr. Nally) has been very illuminating, but I doubt whether his right hon. Friend will thank him for it, because it has entirely confirmed our worst fears that the Bill is a first step in the nationalisation of the licensed trade. While it has been the main plank of the Home Secretary, and also of the Lord President of the Council on Second Reading, that this was but a limited Measure which affected only a small number of possible licences which may come into existence in the future in some rather nebulous small towns, the hon. Member for Bilston has committed himself to a policy of extending nationalisation, and has committed the Socialist Party to it.

Mr. Nally: rose—

Mr. Marlowe: I will give way in a moment. Although the hon. Gentleman did not give way on quite a number of occasions, I will give way in due course. It would be more convenient if I did so to enable the hon. Gentleman to answer the two points I am making, if he so wishes.
The other point I want to make about the hon. Member's speech is this. I had not noticed that he was endeavouring to catch the eye of the Chair in the early, part of the Debate and I rather formed the impression that he decided to speak in

the Debate after my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) had raised the matter of various correspondence in which hon. Members opposite had engaged. We on this side are delighted to notice the extent to which hon. Gentleman opposite have proved themselves touchy upon this subject. It has been abundantly clear that many hon. Gentlemen opposite committed themselves to expressions of opinion which they did not wish drawn out in the light of day and that now that these have been drawn out in the light of day, they very much regret it.

Mr. Nally: On the first point, I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman does not wish to misrepresent me. I am not in favour of a vast extension of the nationalisation of public houses. All I want to make certain is that those very worthy citizens whose names appear over the doors are, in fact, the bosses in their own public houses and not the boys who run around for the brewers. In short, what I want to do is to restore as far as I possibly can the free house system in Britain, and to that question the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) and I will be leading hon. Members in the near future.

Mr. Marlowe: The hon. Gentleman should be very grateful to me for giving him the chance to unsay what he said before and thereby getting the best of both worlds by giving himself the opportunity of being able to go back to his constituency and say, "Although I may appear to have said that I am in favour of nationalised public houses, I know how unpopular that is in the public houses so I do not really favour it."
I want to deal with one or two aspects of the Bill which I regard as of major importance. In many respects it is, perhaps, unfortunate that the right hon. Gentleman included in the Bill a Clause or Clauses dealing with night clubs. Many hon. Gentlemen on both sides and people outside the House, have been at a loss to understand why the right hon. Gentleman of all people—a confirmed teetotaller—should have engaged in Clauses which extended the hours of drinking.

The Secretary of State for Home Affairs (Mr. Ede): The Bill does not extend the hours.

Mr. Marlowe: I agree—it does not extend, but carries later, the hours of drinking. I equally found this procedure of the right hon. Gentleman difficult to understand until I realised its purpose. One had only to read, for instance, the reports in the newspapers of the Report Stage of the Bill to see at once that all the objectionable features of the Bill were obscured by the great publicity given to the new Clauses dealing with night clubs. I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his great ingenuity and use of the propaganda weapon in trying to pilot through a Bill of this kind which in so many ways infringes the liberty of the subject, and doing it in a manner which ensured that no publicity was given to those objectionable features because, of course, night clubs have so much greater news value.
There are features of the Bill which cannot be allowed to pass without comment. It must, I think, be clearly understood from the start that the important feature of Clause 2 is that it completely eliminates competition in the areas affected by the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman proposes to take to himself the sole monopoly of the licensed trade in the designated areas. There can be only one reason for that. It is because he knows that the State monopoly is incapable of standing up to the competition of private enterprise. The right hon. Gentleman in his designated areas dare not have a privately-run public house because he knows that it would receive all the patronage and drive his State public house out of business.
My next objection to the Bill is that it contains powers of compulsory acquisition in Clause 3. Although we battled considerably in our endeavour to get "agreement" substituted for "compulsory purchase," the right hon. Gentleman resisted our proposal from start to finish. He does not propose to allow even the freedom of a licensee in possession to negotiate with him for the sale of his licence or for the transfer of his premises. The right hon. Gentleman prefers to descend upon the new town area and drive that man out of his livelihood. That is one of our strongest objections to the Bill. Whatever are its other unpleasant features, the worst of them is that the right hon. Gentleman can come down upon a man earning a perfectly honest and respectable livelihood and throw him

out and prevent him from earning a living in that way. Only under pressure from us, has even the man's residence been protected. We had to move Amendments for that purpose and it was not until the Report stage that we got any satisfaction about it. We were able to protect the man's residence, but his livelihood is still endangered.
The next feature of the Bill which I find objectionable is the manner in which the right hon. Gentleman has taken the power to brew his own beer. I need not elaborate on this at any length because it has been dealt with by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter), but for some reason which he has never explained, the right hon. Gentleman has made a complete distinction between the power to manufacture soft drinks and the power to brew. If he wishes to manufacture soft drinks, that will be under the control of Parliament to the extent that he can do so only by laying a Statutory Instrument; but with regard to the power to brew the right hon. Gentleman takes quite a different line and insists upon maintaining the power in the Bill so that he need take no further step of the same kind which he has to take for soft drinks. The right hon. Gentleman has never given us any explanation of that distinction other than to say that the brewing trade is a very powerful organisation. It may be a powerful organisation, but I should have thought that if that were so, it is all the more desirable to keep it under Parliamentary control. The right hon. Gentleman does not accept the proposition and one can only draw the conclusion that his motives are more sinister than he will admit.
The next objection to the contents of the Bill is to those parts of the First Schedule in which the Secretary of State takes power, not only to run his own public houses, but to engage in ancillary activities, which may be of a very wide order. He can include the provision of "entertainments and recreation." Those words are not defined anywhere and obviously are capable of very considerable extension. Most of all I object to paragraph 8 in the Schedule in which the Secretary of State commits the unpardonable sin of endeavouring to put himself above the law. On many occasions in Committee we drew attention to this matter and I hoped that the right hon.


Gentleman would do something about that part of the Bill before we left it, but he has not done so and I think it only right that the attention of hon. Members who were not on the Committee should be drawn to those words. The paragraph states:
Notwithstanding anything in the enactments relating to the sale and supply of intoxicating liquor, to the sale of tobacco and to entertainments and recreation, any of the activities specified in section one of this Act and the foregoing provisions of this Schedule may be carried on"—
and those are the effective words—
by or on behalf of the Secretary of State, in premises occupied by him, without the need for any licence, and shall not be subject to any restrictions imposed by law on the carrying on of such activities.
I hold strongly that that is a provision which this House ought not to allow to pass without strong comment. It should be remembered that this provision goes far beyond the running of a public house or an inn and covers ancillary activities such as providing "entertainments and recreation." In respect of all these matters the right hon. Gentleman says, "I shall not require a licence or come under the jurisdiction of the local justices as do all other people who carry on those activities." On those grounds, I contend that he is seeking to place himself and his servants above the law.
I see the hon. Member for West Coventry (Mr. Edelman) in his place. He has spoken to me of some reference I made to him in the course of the Report stage when I drew attention to an undertaking given by the hon. Member and inquired why he was not in his place. The hon. Member has explained that he was ill at the time and was unable to be present on that account. I would not have commented on his absence if I had known that he was ill.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Hastings) is not present. He found himself at variance with me on Report stage and I think I did some injustice in the sense that I was under a misapprehension as to his position at the time of Second Reading. That would have been cleared up if the hon. Member had intervened, or if any hon. Member had intervened, at the time the Lord President of the Council said that no existing licence was affected. The point I was making was that the Lord President of the Council was misleading

all his colleagues in telling them that no existing licence was affected when so obviously some were. If I did the hon. Member for Barking any injustice, I apologise.
The final conclusion I come to on this Bill is that it is taking powers which are quite unnecessary for the solution of the problem of the licensed trade in the new towns. It is one in which the great step of State control is taken one pace further forward. It is something which hon. Members opposite want only because they believe it to be a profit-making concern. It is in line with what hon. Members opposite have indicated as their policy for the next General Election, to look round where the money is and to make an effort to grab it. That is what hon. Members are doing in relation to matters which they have outlined in regard to insurance, cement and other things. I do not pursue that further than to say that they are endeavouring to do the same in the licensed trade, to go out for the money and grab it for themselves.

6.26 p.m.

Mr. Walker: I am delighted to join in this Debate. I am pleased for the reason that I have devoted the whole of my life to advocate temperance reform. Because of the activities which have formed the chief part of my religious and public life, I wish to say what I think about this Bill. I cannot say I am delighted about it or that it arouses any enthusiasm. Looking at it as a life-long teetotaller and temperance worker, I cannot see that it will advance the cause of temperance which I have so much at heart.
All through my life in studying temperance and licensing reform I have had to come to the conclusion that members of the Conservative Party have, throughout the course of their history, been ardent supporters of the liquor traffic. I do not say that to give the impression that every Member of the Conservative Party is a supporter of the liquor traffic in the way of individual drinking, because I know there are hundreds in the Conservative Party who are just as good teetotallers as I am. But, politically, they have always supported this great traffic which has done a great deal of harm and created a great amount of evil in our midst. I feel very strongly that we should have been an immeasurably better


country, healthier and wiser, and that everything would have been improved, if we had had little to do with a traffic of this description. I know it is a worldwide question and one which we have to face in this country.
When the Bill was introduced there was no doubt that the trade and the Conservative Party generally went into hysterics about it. They felt certain that here was a proposition which would cause a great deal of harm and mischief to the trade. Like other hon. Members, I received many petitions against the Bill. One I remember came from a public house in my constituency and the landlord accompanied it by a personal letter in which he said:
My customers strongly object to State public houses and to State beer and they do not want their beer served to them by civil servants.
I sent him a reply in which I said:
Unless the town of Rawtenstall becomes a new town under the Bill you need have no fear about State control or your business being taken over by the State.
In answering in that strain I think I was answering quite correctly and in accordance with the provisions of the Bill.
The party opposite cannot get away from the fact that they have cultivated assiduously the idea that here is a Bill to nationalise the liquor traffic all round. Every publican in the country, every man who likes a glass of beer, became fully satisfied that the position, as declared from every platform and in all their newspapers was that the liquor traffic was to be nationalised. We know that the Bill is confined entirely and absolutely to the new towns. What I do not like about it is that the Home Secretary, in introducing this Bill, seems to have conceived the idea that we are to transfer thousands of people to these new towns, and that every 1,500 or 2,000 people brought from congested areas and dumped down into these new towns would bring their local pub with them; there would be a pub for every 1,200 or 1,500 people. I hope I am not mistaking the intention of the Home Secretary in making that statement.

Mr. Ede: If the hon. Member had been in the Committee he would have known that I resisted an Amendment which attempted to establish a ratio. Each town

and each part of a town is to be considered on its merits.

Mr. Walker: I am very glad to hear that. I was quoting a view very generally expressed. I do not believe that public houses in this country should be numbered according to the numbers of the population.
I am speaking specifically today as a temperance worker and a teetotaller and I do not like this Bill. The Opposition say they oppose it because it is to nationalise the liquor traffic. The right hon. and learned Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe), opening the Debate for the Opposition, said it was the first wedge in the nationalisation of this traffic. I am against this Bill because I am against nationalisation of the drink trade. I do not think that the drink trade ought to be nationalised and I think it would be a bad thing if it were. I do not know, and nobody knows, whether this trade will be improved, whether or not the evil would be reduced by nationalisation. I am certainly in favour of anything that will reduce the iniquity of the drink evil in this country, but I should have to be satisfied that if the trade were nationalised, it would reduce the drink habit and the volume of drinking which is going on today—the consumption of drink which we cannot afford and which is a menace to our basic unity. Therefore I cannot accept the idea or the supposition that nationalisation would in any way reduce this fearful traffic that there is amongst us today. I want to see it controlled and put under wise direction, but I cannot see that the provisions of this Bill will help us in any sense whatever.
The very thought that certain public houses are to be open for later hours, and that night clubs are to be open until 2 and 2.30 in the morning, is certainly a most grievous proposition so far as I am concerned. I believe that every one of us would be very much better off, and in every aspect of our every-day life we should be immeasurably better off, without this drink menace. Therefore I think that the object of every party should be to unite in reducing this evil and trying to make our country more sober and more temperate. With the general wish that human life should improve and that the standard of life should be raised, I cannot conceive that there is anyone, whatever


might be their investment interest in this business, or in temperance reform who can give support to the building and development of a drink traffic of this description.
On the other hand, I think we should devote our attention in passing Bills of this description to ensuring that there will be a definite improvement and something that will make our nation more sober. I am interested in the young people. I think we should do everything to help them and give them a better future than we have ourselves. But if there is to be the incubus of the drink traffic upon us, the future of the rising generation will be no better than that of the past. For those reasons I do not feel that I can support in the Division Lobby a Bill of this description.

6.37 p.m.

Mr. Beverley Baxter: While Mr. Deputy-Speaker was in the Chair the hon. Member for Bilston (Mr. Nally) called attention with some force to an inaccuracy of which I was guilty in confusing him with the hon. Member for West Wolverhampton (Mr. H. D. Hughes). I would like to make it plain to the, House that while I plead absolutely guilty to this inaccuracy, it was at a by-election meeting in South Hammersmith, and the hon. Member for West Wolverhampton was rather hidden by the microphone and the extraordinary charm of the learned Attorney-General. Both hon. Members being of rather the same size, I did commit that inaccuracy. I often think that while parents of two sardines probably have no difficulty in distinguishing between their progeny it is not so easy for the casual observer.
The hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Walker) made a very sincere speech on the evil of alcoholic drinks, and argued that our country would be better off without them. That is the point of view held by many hon. Members, regardless of their politics, and we respect it very much. At the same time, we cannot agree with it and I think it is a little unfortunate to regard the public house as necessarily a place of iniquity and temptation. The public house of this country is peculiarly an English invention. There is nothing like it in the rest of the world.
I can tell the House that when the Canadian and American soldiers got back to their own country, the institution which

they have missed most and which they talked about most was the English pub—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]I assure hon. Members it is true. They found in it a form of club and also a second Parliament where there is great interest in public affairs. There are some pubs which are dirty and some which are not well run, but there is an extraordinary difference according to the type of proprietor and according to the personality of the persons who run the public house. There was a great enthusiasm for this English invention of the public house. Therefore, I feel it is a pity to see the encroaching hand of the State upon it.
If we consider for a moment the lives we now lead, we feel that hand upon our shoulder almost from sunrise to midnight. We get up in the morning and, if it is in the winter time, we light our fires with State-owned and State-produced coal. The housewife cooks her meal with State-owned gas. If it has not been cut off, we light our rooms with State-owned electricity. We travel by State-owned trains to the City to our offices. We pick up the telephone and get a wrong number. It is a State-owned telephone. Wherever we turn it is the State, the State, the State. We get our teeth filled by State paid dentists. We get our appendixes cut out by State-paid surgeons.
The State is becoming the monster of modern existence in this country. When the Under-Secretary of State—nurtured in Conservatism as he was and with his family fortunes suckled on beer—accuses us of being doctrinaire in our response to this Bill, we asked what has built up this monstrous middle-European conception of the State but doctrinaire Socialism by hon. Gentlemen opposite? The electors have already indicated their feelings towards this State penetration. This is the final step. This is State penetration into the one free institution left—into the public house.
There were many other important points that I wished to raise as well, but I shall end on this one note because I have seen that slight movement of your hand, Mr. Speaker, which indicates that there should be presto and not adagio. One or two hon. Gentlemen opposite have proclaimed with great confidence that this Bill does not threaten the nationalisation of the beer industry. I see that my good Friend the hon. Member for Bilston nods


his head. I would remind my hon. Friend that this is what the Lord President of the Council said in this House during the Second Reading Debate. [HON. MEMBERS: "It has been quoted twice already."] Then I shall quote it again. Perhaps on the third time it will penetrate even the skulls opposite. He said:
I say, that if, as I hope will not be the case, this trade is going to make itself the instrument of a political party—[Interruption]—if this trade is going to make itself, according to this declaration, a party political instrument and turn every public house into—[Interruption.] If that is so—[Interruption.] The Opposition will get this back in good time—[Interruption.] If that is so, then I venture to say that the trade will be ill-advised and will be inviting a policy which it does not want."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th December, 1948; Vol. 459, c. 1138.]
It is a policy which will apply to insurance, to steel and to everything in the country. For that reason we on this side of the House will vote with great heartiness against this had Bill.

6.44 p.m.

Mr. Walkden: I am deeply grateful for the opportunity to put to the Home Secretary three questions which concern the men and women engaged in the restaurants and clubs of London. I raised this matter on the Report stage. I must confess that today I had intended to speak, as many of my hon. Friends have done, about Part I of the Bill, about which I interrupted the right hon. and learned Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe). I believe that the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows that the assurances given during the Committee stage by the Home Secretary concern policy when these new State public houses are built in the new towns, as distinct from the places such as that visited by the hon. Member for Wood Green (Mr. Baxter) when he called at my "local" the other month.
On that occasion he wanted a pint of ale and he could only have one particular ale from one brewery. I believe that he liked it, because I like it myself and I have been a customer there for 18 years. The difference will be that if we should meet in one of the new State houses, say five years from now, we should be able to choose a brew from three or four breweries. We should be able to quench our thirst with the choice of the breweries in the area. That is a sensible way of

approaching this problem. This gives greater freedom to the customer, as was explained in the magnificent speech of the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing). Also, I do not know how the Opposition will be able to find an answer to what was said by the hon. Member for Bilston (Mr. Nally). We realise what is involved, and we know that the Opposition dare not face up to the tied house question.
My questions to the Home Secretary relate not to Part I but to Clauses 19 and 20 which refer to the restaurants and clubs. I have previously explained my surprise that the clubs have been brought in, but on reflection I agree that the only way in which the Home Secretary could approach the problem was by bringing in the right of some clubs to keep open until 2.30 if the licensed restaurants were to remain open. This is the issue. Everybody knows that the licensed restaurants will observe all the laws. I should like to know whether the right hon. Gentleman has consulted with the Minister of Labour regarding the implications of the concession he is making to the clubs. They will get their music and dancing licences from the L.C.C., so I am informed, because their premises are structurally in order. I understand that if we approve of Clauses 19 and 20 each restaurant if it wants an "extra hours" licence and if it is structurally in order and complies with the fire and other safety precautions, will be able to get an extension until 2.30. According to the next Clause, the clubs are in the same class.
Here is the risk. At the moment these clubs are not observing any of the conditions—the Meals in Establishments Order, for example. In the main these clubs do not observe any of the conditions laid down by the Ministry of Food. This is a most serious matter. From the angle of the worker it is a serious issue that we should give to the people who will run these clubs certain rights which they will enjoy because this Bill says so and because the L.C.C. grant them a music and dancing licence. They will observe no conditions whatever unless we have the necessary safeguards in the Bill. I know that the right hon. Gentleman may say that they will be compelled to observe the law, but I want an assurance from him that consultations have taken


place not only with the police and the L.C.C. but with all the other Departments involved in regulating the wages and conditions which were the subject of my challenge on the Report stage.
I would say to my hon. Friends the total abstainers that I cannot pretend that I am a teetotaller. I have been a beer drinker for a long time. They have missed an important point in connection with Clause 29. I cannot understand why. I ask the Home Secretary to look at this Clause before we send the Bill to another place. Clause 29 allows these six-bottle shops, which are now running under an Excise licence in the hope that the local magistrates will grant them a licence at the next sessions, a full licence when this Bill becomes law. Let us face the facts. This is a chance for many of the gin shops which have been planted down in the suburbs of London and all large cities in the hope that they will gain favour at the Brewster Sessions. I questioned the Under-Secretary about this matter during the Committee stage, and I remember the answer I received. I am deeply concerned about it, because this Clause certainly gives the "Open, Sesame" to these people. I beg the Home Secretary to have a look at it again, to see if he can explain it or amend it in another place. If it can be amended, let us do it in such a way as to safeguard this position, because otherwise I fear that we shall be handing out licences to all these six-bottle shops, for which there is no real need.
I wish the Bill well and I wish the Home Secretary well, because this is the most practical way of dealing with the problem of the licensed trade that has been put forward for years, and we hope that it will soon reach the Statute Book and become law.

6.51 p.m.

Mr. Hollis: There are obviously a number of ways in which, theoretically, public houses can be run. They can be owned by the breweries, we could have the public house keeper owning them, we could have municipal or State public houses, or we could have various compromises between those schemes. All our complaint about this Bill is that it absolutely settles that in the new towns the public houses shall be exclusively and without appeal, State pubs.
I entirely repudiate the argument of the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) and other hon. Members opposite that we are committing ourselves either to an exact perpetuation of the present system or to any other particular system by being opposed to this Bill. In fact, if my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe) will forgive me, in his Second Reading speech, far from speaking as the creature of the brewers, as the hon. Member for Horn-church seemed to think, he said he was in favour of experiments in municipal pubs in certain circumstances. Therefore, all we are concerned about with this particular Bill is not these large considerations which we shall be debating at another time as to how the public house system can be reformed, but whether we are committing ourselves to this particular method as the one method which is possible at all.
The second point I want to make is that the hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Walker) was far from fair when he used the very strong phrase, which he used without qualification, that on every platform Tory speakers were assiduously cultivating the notion that by means of this Bill, the whole liquor traffic was to be nationalised. For myself, I repudiate that very strongly. I was rung up by licensed firms in my constituency who were under that impression, and I took the trouble to explain to them what the Bill does and does not do, and I certainly contradicted that impression. I am sure that other hon. Members must have done the same thing.
The point is that we are told by the Government that they do not wish to nationalise the whole of the liquor trade in this country, but the trouble with the logic of the majority, if not all, of the arguments in favour of this limited method of nationalisation is whether or not they make the way clear for nationalisation. I have no time to demonstrate that, but it is fairly self-evident. That being so, it is exceptionally important, if the Home Secretary does not desire to have this general nationalisation, that he should take out of the Bill paragraph 4 of Part II of the First Schedule, which gives him power for the brewing of beer. He himself has admitted that he does not wish to exercise that power, except in certain circumstances, such as sabotage, which it is practically certain can never


exist. I would make a last appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to take a step which would greatly relieve the public mind.

6.55 p.m.

Mr. Grimston: In opening this Debate this afternoon, the Under-Secretary referred to the fact that the Bill has been considerably modified during its passage through Committee and Report stages, and that is true. Some of the objectionable features have been taken out of it. For instance, it has been restricted to the new towns, and the power to go into adjacent areas has been removed. Nevertheless, the Bill still remains objectionable to us, for reasons which I shall briefly summarise.
It has been argued that this method is the only solution of the problems of licensing which will arise with the creation of new towns and where there are nucleus areas, but we do not accept that. I cannot, of course, on Third Reading go into alternatives, but we put them forward at considerable length during the Committee stage and we remain entirely unconvinced that they were not a practicable solution. Therefore, one of our objections to this Bill is that there are methods open to them which the Government have not taken, and, in spite of the protestations, we are driven to the conclusion that the real reason for this Bill is to be sought elsewhere. It fits far too closely into the general pattern of the nationalisation proposals which this Government have brought forward, and, if the House wants a further illustration, it resembles very closely the proposals for the partial nationalisation of the insurance industry that have been produced. For that reason, we believe that, in spite of their protestations, the real reason is not that State management is the only solution.
Of course, the Bill flies in the face of the most recent reports on licensing, both in the case of England and Scotland. In the case of England, it is true that some extension of the Carlisle State system and a further experiment in it was recommended, though not upon these lines. In the case of Scotland, it was definitely recommended that State management should be brought to an end. This Bill deliberately flouts both

these conclusions of the licensing Commissions.
Now, I want to say a word or two about the matter of pledges and assurances given by hon. Member; opposite. It seems to me that this is a matter which ought to be put before the public, and I would go so far as to say that no hon. Member opposite who has given an assurance or pledge that existing licensees are not interfered with by this Bill has any right to vote for its Third Reading, and I think it is just as well to place the matter on record in reference to the contents of the Bill. Clause 2 restricts the sale and supply of intoxicating liquor other than by the Secretary of State, and if hon. Members will take the trouble to look at Subsection (1, a), they will see the proviso that the subsection shall not apply—
to anything done in premises which were licensed premises or a registered club when State management came into operation in the district in which the premises are situated and have continued to be licensed premises or a registered club, as the case may be, since that time.
That looks fair enough, but if we look at Clause 3, subsection (1, b), we see that the Secretary of State can acquire by compulsory purchase any licensed permises in a State management district. Clause 3 completely takes away the protection provided by Clause 2. It may be that hon. Members opposite who have given assurances in that regard only looked at Clause 2, but the fact remains that any assurance of that sort is not substantiated by the Bill as it stands, and I think that the country and the public should know that.
In a way, it is even worse than that because, if we turn to Clause 4, we find that one of the provisions of the New Towns Act, 1946, which gave security to people carrying on a business in a new town, is also repudiated. It is true that the Home Secretary has made some concessions about this, but the fact remains that only three years ago the House passed the New Towns Act, and in that Act it was laid down that a development corporation had an obligation to see that people who were disturbed in their business should have the opportunity of carrying on that business on some land provided for them by the development corporation. One would have thought that an assurance enshrined


so recently in an Act of Parliament would certainly stand some test of time. No doubt it was thought to apply to existing licence holders at the time the New Towns Act was passing through this House, but, three years later, this Bill is brought along to impose State management in the new town areas, and part of the undertaking specifically put into the 1946 Act is taken away.
I think that we have every right to protest at that sort of thing being done. It is true that, as the Bill first appeared before us, there was no obligation to find the dispossessed man even a dwelling. That has been put right, and, to be perfectly fair to the Home Secretary, he has also accepted an Amendment that, as far as practicable, he will find a man a job either as a manager or as a State licensee. But that does not cover the case of the man who may own his pub and does not want to become a State licensee or manager. He will be turned out, and if it is any use to him to have a house found in an area where he is not permitted to work any longer, he can have it, but that is all he can have. Therefore, I come back to the assurance given by hon. Members opposite—some have retracted it, I know—probably based upon what the Lord President has said, but any hon. Member who has given such an assurance and who votes for the Third Reading of this Bill is violating his pledge. I know that there are precedents for it under this Government, and I dare say the friendly societies will not forget it, but it is not a good thing that a thoroughly bad precedent should be followed. There seems so very little reason for it because, during his speech this afternoon, the Under-Secretary referred to the fact that there will be very few of these people. That is true. There will only be a few licensees in the nucleus area of the new towns.
The Home Secretary has said that one of his difficulties is going to be to find enough people to manage the new "pubs," so there really seems very little reason for going back on the pledge under the New Towns Act. We were given a hint, perhaps inadvertently, by an hon. Member opposite during Report stage of why the right hon. Gentleman wants this power; it is because he may not be able to find enough people of the right political frame of mind to take on the job, and who are already in the new towns.

The same hon. Member tried to cover up what he had said, but it was pretty obvious that he thought the Home Secretary should have the power to turn out a man who might be of a political persuasion which was not, perhaps, best calculated to tit him for the job of manager or licensee of a State "pub."
Apart from the general question of nationalisation, those are the main reasons why we object to this Bill. To digress from Part I for a moment, I wish to say a word or two about the provisions which enable night entertainment to be provided in London. Here, I think, the Home Secretary has shown a very broad-minded attitude, and one which caused the hon. Member for West Ealing (Mr. J. Hudson) who, I am sory to say, is not here, some grief and disappointment. I must say he is one of those people who want to take away some of our liberties—I am glad to see that he is now with us—but he does it in such a genial and disarming way that if anyone could persuade us to have our liberties taken away, I think he would be the person most likely to do it. He also thought that the churches would be upset by these Clauses. I do not want to be irreverent in any way, but I would remind him that at the marriage feast in Cana of Galilee is was not wine that was turned into water.
I happened to see a paragraph in one of the papers last week to the effect that some of the foreign visitors to the British Industries Fair were complaining of the lack of entertainment in London. It was suggested that that had some bearing upon the fact that they were not giving as many orders as they might have done. On reading that, although of course it is only a very small step, I thought that perhaps the provision of more of what they can obtain on the Continent in the way of entertainment at night, which in future they will be able to obtain in London, was just a small instance of the argument we put forward, and with which the Home Secretary agrees, that the provision of these facilities would help trade, at any rate in an indirect way.
In conclusion, we believe this Bill is unjust in some of its provisions. It may dispossess a man who has been a publican for many years in a nucleus area simply because the Secretary of State wants to take over his business. It is a further encroachment upon liberty, and it is not necessary to bring all new towns


under State management as the only means of solving the licensing problem which will exist. Although the Bill is a small one, it is a step in the insidious advance of nationalisation, and we are resisting this further grab by the State, for that is what it is, and in doing so we are conscious that we have the support of a growing multitude of people in this country who are awakening to the dangers, both to our economy and to our liberty, inherent in the steady advance of nationalisation of which this Bill is a part.

7.9 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): We have had an interesting and, for the greater part of the time, I think I may not unjustly say a lighthearted Debate on this Bill. In fact, the right hon. and learned Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe) rather surprised me by the sprightliness of his approach to most of the problems. Indeed, when we consider his performance today, we realise that it was not in satire but in justice that the hon. Member for Wood Green (Mr. Baxter) once alluded to the "Gaiety Girls" of the Front Opposition Bench. His rousing plea for democracy for the customer in the licensed trade was one that we all welcomed. We regard this Measure as one of the means of promoting it in the places where the Bill will be applied. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that in the new towns, if you do not like the beer in the house to which you have gone, you cannot go round the corner and get a can of the beer which you do like. Is he so sure that if I had accepted the proposals of the brewers with regard to the new towns, there would have been more than one brewer in a new town? If he is, I wish he had been present at the interview. It would have been illuminating to him.
I think we have had in the anti-climax of this Debate this afternoon the best comment on the campaign which was waged against this Bill when it was first introduced. I think that the country and even the Opposition are at last beginning to see this matter in its true perspective. I was asked by the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter), what is the common factor which justifies applying the State management scheme to all the new

towns? The common factor is that they are all new towns where this facility, with others, has to be planned, and we think it is as well that with a common factor we should have a common policy.
I want to ask a question of the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames, who had some slight controversy with my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham (Mr. Braddock) in one of the red herrings which have been drawn across the trail of this Debate this afternoon. Did he know of the second sentence read by my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham before my hon. Friend read it out today?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: If the right hon. Gentleman is really anxious to know, the answer to the question he put is. "No."

Mr. Ede: Precisely. During the whole of the proceedings in Committee documents were being passed about headed "The Brewers' Society." They were being passed from one hon. Member to the other on the opposite side——

Hon. Members: No, no.

Mr. Marlowe: I would not like to get cross with the right hon. Gentleman about this, but I challenge his recollection that he ever saw a document headed "The Brewers' Society."

Mr. Ede: Oh, yes I did, and more than one.

Mr. Marlowe: I mean in relation to this matter about which he is speaking.

Mr. Ede: Yes, in relation to this matter. After all, quotations were read out from time to time and when one hon. Member lost his papers and could not find them, another hon. Member just handed the document up to him. That cannot be challenged and anyone who was there knows that it is so. What happened in that case? Let us be quite clear on what happened. A letter was sent by an employee of a brewer to my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham, in whom I take some kind of paternal interest because 26 years ago I was the Member for Mitcham.

Mr. McKie: After last night?

Mr. Ede: Yes. After all, there is more interest in one sheep which is found than in ninety-nine which have never strayed. The employee of the brewer wrote to my


hon. Friend, who sent a reply. It was handed to the brewer, who extracted one sentence from its context and ignored the second sentence which was read out this afternoon by my hon. Friend and which made it quite clear that he understood exactly what the controversy was about. I give that as an example of the way in which the campaign was very carefully conducted so as to procure certain quotations which hon. Members opposite gave in all good faith, not knowing that they had been given only the part of the document which suited the case of the person who supplied them with the quotation.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the House, in this case which he has cited, any words which qualify the clear meaning of the words which were quoted by me?

Mr. Ede: Yes, the second sentence which was read out by my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham.

Mr. Grimston: What was it?

Mr. Ede: I am within the recollection of a large number of hon. Members who were here when the quotation was read, and, with all respect to the correspondent of my hon. Friend, I did not commit to memory the words which he read out.
The House has had presented to it this afternoon very varying pictures of my own attitude towards this subject. According to some people, in some parts of the Bill I am the model of enlightenment, but in other parts of the Bill, according to my hon. Friend the Member for West Ealing (Mr. J. Hudson) I am in some way or other connected with Henry VIII.

Colonel Dower: By marriage?

Mr. Ede: I would not make that claim. Again, I am represented as a most Machiavellian person who has all sorts of sinister provisions for the people of this country hidden in this very simple Measure. The fact is that the reason for this Bill is the one which I have already given, that in the planning of the new towns it is desirable that there should be available from the start a clearly-thought-out plan commending itself to as wide a range of interests inside the town as is possible. For that reason we have provided in the Bill for the advisory committees. In one of his lighter

moments the right hon. and learned Member for West Derby said that these represented a country governess from whom Whitehall might play truant at will. May I say that I do not regard that as the picture at all? It is true that I have some professional interest in governesses, and, for a start, they are very difficult people from whom to play truant.
I want the advisory committees to have as wide a power as possible and, to show that that is genuine, I intend to answer a question put to me by my hon. Friend the Member for West Ealing. I propose under the Bill to reconstitute the State Management Council and to include in it representatives of the various advisory committees. I cannot promise that every advisory committee will have a representative on the State Management Council for, in the course of time, that might make the State Management Council so unwieldy a body as to be incapable of functioning effectively, but I have met the chairmen of the development corporations on this matter and I am glad to say that I have secured their agreement, which was very willingly given, to the proposal that the larger ones should have at least one representative on the State Management Council and that the smaller ones should be grouped so that those having fairly similar interests would be able to select a person to represent them on the council.

Earl Winterton: As my constituents may be affected by this matter, and as I have not spoken on the Bill, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman if any steps have been taken by these chairmen to consult the people who, after all, are affected—the residents of the existing towns?

Mr. Ede: What steps they took I do not know, but——

Earl Winterton: My constituents are concerned about it.

Mr. Ede: —they did consult the development corporations before they gave me the final answer which I have just mentioned; and I think that that shows that the advisory committees will, in fact, in future have a very vital part to play in the development of the licence system in these towns, and that it will ensure that their views will be properly represented.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: I asked a question on Second Reading on exactly this issue. I asked whether members of the State Management Council were to be members of the local advisory committees. The right hon. Gentleman's answer at that time was that they would not be. The right hon. Gentleman now, I gather, has completely reversed that decision. I want to get the point clear, and that is why I ask this question.

Mr. Ede: Really, the hon. Member has served on the Committee upstairs, and he knows that throughout all stages of this Bill I have been receptive of any idea that has been put forward from any part of the Committee or of the House. That is the rule I endeavour to follow on every Bill which it is my duty to present to the House. Where in the course of discussion I have come to the conclusion that it is desirable that a change should be made, even if it means a reversal, I have always endeavoured not to be so cowardly as to decline to make an Amendment which I am convinced by the arguments ought to be made to any Measure for which I am responsible. I am bound to say that I have profited during the course of the Bill from suggestions made by hon. Friends behind me and by hon. Members on the other side of the House, and testimony to that effect has been given by hon. Members opposite during the Debate today. I do feel now that it is desirable that the State management districts shall have an opportunity of participating on the State Management Council in the development of this Measure in the various towns with which they will be concerned.
The right hon. and learned Member for West Derby alluded to the fact that this Bill was concerned with Scotland, and he raised a protest, as a Scotsman who has come south of the Border, at the fact that Scotland is dealt with in this Bill. Let me point out that, contrary to what he said, that for 100 years Scotland has had a separate licensing history, the three last licensing Acts, the Licensing Act, 1921, the Intoxicating Liquor Act, 1923, and the Licensing (Permitted Hours) Act, 1934, have been United Kingdom Measures. So I think it is desirable that where we can we should have United Kingdom Measures on this matter. We are not breaking fresh ground, but are following the most recent precedents, when we deal with England

and Wales and Scotland in the same Measure. I cannot follow why it should be thought necessary, as was suggested by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, that there should be a separate Scottish Bill for this matter, because really we are dealing with the same problem in the two countries of adjusting the licensing system to the new towns.
I want to deal, in the few moments left to me, with some of the statements made by my hon. Friends the Members for West Ealing and Rossendale (Mr. Walker). I am in this peculiar position with regard to this Bill, that if all the people in the country had the same habits in this matter as I have, no single Clause of the Bill would be necessary. It does enable me, I hope, to take in some respects a completely objective view of the whole matter. I really regret that my hon. Friend the Member for West Ealing finds it difficult to adopt a similar, detached attitude when viewing what he and I may regard, perhaps, as the failings, and not quite understandable appetites, of some of our fellow human beings.
Whether we like it or not, the problem of the licensed trade in London, and particularly in the City of Westminster, is a difficult problem which has baffled successive holders of my office over a very long period, and has from time to time led to very considerable corruption in the police force, and the lowering of respect for the law, which is always a serious social evil. I have endeavoured to find in the Bill some way of dealing with this problem. It recognises the hard facts of the situation, but enables the reasonable and natural desires of sections of the population to be met, without infringing on the liberty of anyone else, and at the same time ensures that there shall be adequate and appropriate supervision of the places to which these facilities are granted.
It is an experiment, but it is one which, I know, will be watched very carefully. It is one, I believe, that can be made to operate successfully, and that can be operated without some of those very awkward pieces of camouflage which, at the moment, have to be used to cover up, either the business as conducted, or the way in which it is investigated. By ensuring that all these places shall be open to the police—a thing that, quite frankly, I did not expect the clubs to


agree to—I have secured a very considerable extension of any power of control that has hitherto existed, and that will very largely remove all the difficulties that have occurred in previous instances of dealing with the adequate control of those places.
The hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walkden) asked me about the persons employed there. Under this Bill the people there will be under the Control of Meals Order. They will also be under the Catering Wages Order. Everyone here who is connected with a workmen's club knows the problems that are being created in the workmen's clubs by the requirements with regard to wages and hours of labour that the Catering Wages Orders are imposing on those who run those clubs. Here again, I think the people for whom the hon. Member spoke will find that the people employed in those places will find that this Measure gives them safeguards which they previously did not enjoy, for these places will be registered clubs. The fact that they have to make provision for substantial meals being served will draw attention to the kind of employees who may be expected to be found there.
There are one or two other quite small amendments which are made in the law, to one of which the hon. Member for

Doncaster also alluded. That is the provision with regard to the wholesale wine licence which has in the past been used for carrying on a retail business. He asked what would happen to the six-bottle shop. The existing six-bottle shop will be regarded as an applicant for a renewal at the first brewster sessions after the Act is passed, but the renewal will only be of the licence which it already holds. The six-bottle licence will not be reduced to a single-bottle licence except by the express action of the licensing justices concerned, so any improvement from the point of view of the vendor in the licence will have to be a matter for the consideration of the justices.

We have had this Bill before the House for several months. I want to conclude my remarks by thanking all the Members of the House who have participated in the discussions upstairs or on the Floor of the House for the help they have given me. I am quite certain that, as with so many other Measures, we shall find in 20 years' time perhaps the Conservative Party standing up vigorously to protect this Measure from some proposal to improve on it.

Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes. 305; Noes, 187.

Division No. 143.]
AYES
[7.32 p.m.


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Brooks, T. J. (Rothwall)
Delargy, H. J.


Albu, A. H.
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Diamond, J.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V.
Brown, George (Belper)
Dobbie, W.


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Dodds, N. N.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.
Donovan, T.


Alpass, J. H.
Burden, T. W.
Driberg, T. E. N.


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)
Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Callaghan, James
Dye, S.


Attewell, H. C.
Carmichael, James
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Champion, A. J.
Edelman, M.


Austin, H. Lewis
Chater, D.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Sir C. (Bedwellty)


Awbery, S. S.
Chetwynd, G. R.
Edwards, John (Blackburn)


Ayles, W. H.
Cluse, W. S.
Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)


Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.
Cobb, F. A.
Evans, E. (Lowestoft)


Bacon, Miss A.
Cocks, F. S.
Evans, John (Ogmore)


Baird, J.
Collick, P.
Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)


Balfour, A.
Collins, V. J.
Ewart, R.


Barslow, P. G.
Colman, Miss G. M.
Fairhurst, F.


Barton, C.
Cook, T. F.
Farthing, W. J.


Battley, J. R.
Cooper, G.
Fernyhough, E.


Bechervaise, A. E.
Corlett, Dr. J.
Field, Capt. W. J.


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Cove, W. G.
Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)


Benson, G.
Crawley, A.
Follick, M.


Berry, H.
Crossman, R. H. S.
Foot, M. M.


Beswick, F.
Daggar, G.
Forman, J. C.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Daines, P.
Freeman, J. (Watford)


Bing, G. H. C.
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.


Binns, J.
Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Gibbins, J.


Blackburn, A. R.
Davies, Ernest (Enfield)
Gilzean, A.


Blenkinsop, A.
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Glanville, J. E. (Consett)


Blyton, W. R.
Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Gooch, E. G.


Bowden, Fig. Offr. H. W.
Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Goodrich, H. E.


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl. Exch'ge)
Deer, G.
Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)


Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
de Freitas, Geoffrey
Grenfell, D. R.




Grey, C. F.
Mainwaring, W. H.
Simmons, C. J.


Grierson, E.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Skeffington, A. M.


Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield)
Skeffington-Lodge, T. C.


Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)
Mann, Mrs. J.
Skinnard, F. W.


Guest, Dr. L. Haden
Manning, Mrs L. (Epping)
Smith, C. (Colchester)


Gunter, R. J.
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke)


Haire, John E. (Wycombe)
Mathers, Rt. Hon. George
Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)


Hale, Leslie
Medland, H. M.
Smith, S. H. (Hull, S. W.)


Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil
Mellish, R. J.
Snow, J. W.


Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.
Messer, F.
Solley, L. J.


Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
Middleton, Mrs. L.
Sorensen, R. W.


Hardman, D. R.
Mikardo, Ian
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Hardy, E. A.
Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R.
Sparks, J. A.


Harrison, J.
Mitchison, G. R.
Steele, T.


Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Kingswinford)
Monslow, W.
Stokes, R. R.


Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Moody, A. S.
Stubbs, A. E.


Herbison, Miss M.
Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Swingler, S.


Hewitson, Capt M.
Morley, R.
Sylvester, G. O.


Hobson, C. R.
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)
Symonds, A. L.


Holman, P.
Morrison, Rt. Hn. H. (Lewisham, E.)
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)
Mort, D. L.
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)


Horabin, T. L.
Murray, J. D.
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)


Houghton, A. L. N. D.
Nally, W.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Hoy, J.
Naylor, T. E.
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)
Neal, H. (Claycross)
Thomas, John R. (Dover)


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N)
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)
Thurtle, Ernest


Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton W.)
Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)
Timmons, J.


Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Noel-Baker, Rt Hon. P. J. (Derby)
Titterington, M. F.


Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Oldfield, W. H.
Tolley, L.


Irving, W. J. (Tottenham, N.)
Oliver, G. H.
Turner-Samuels, M.


Janner, B.
Orbach, M.
Ungoed-Thomas, L.


Jay, D. P. T.
Paget, R. T.
Usborne, Henry


Jeger, G. (Winchester)
Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)
Vernon, Maj. W. F.


Jenkins, R. H.
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Viant, S. P.


John, W.
Pargiter, G. A.
Walkdon, E.


Johnston, Douglas
Parker, J.
Wallace, G. D. (Chislechurst)


Jones, Rt. Hon. A. C. (Shipley)
Parkin, B. T.
Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)


Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)
Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)
Watkins, T. E.


Keenan, W.
Paton, J. (Norwich)
Watson, W. M.


Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Pearson, A.
Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)


King, E. M.
Pearl, T. F.
Weitzman, D.


Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E.
Popplewell, E.
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)


Kinley, J.
Porter, E. (Warrington)
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)


Kirby, B. V.
Porter, G. (Leeds)
West, D. G.


Kirkwood, Rt. Hon. D.
Price, M. Philips
Wheatley, Rt. Hn. J. T. (Edinb'gh, E.)


Lawson, Rt. Hon. J. J.
Proctor, W. T.
White, H. (Derbyshire, N. E.)


Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)
Pryde, D. J.
Whiteley, Rt, Hon. W.


Leonard, W.
Pursey, Comdr. H.
Wigg, George


Leslie, J. R.
Randall, H. E.
Wilcock, Group-Capt. C. A. B.


Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)
Ranger, J.
Wilkes, L.


Lewis, J. (Bolton)
Rankin, J.
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Rees-Williams, D. R.
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)


Lindgren, G. S.
Reid, T. (Swindon)
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Ridealgh, Mrs. M.
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Logan, D. G.
Robens, A.
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Longden, F.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Lyne, A. W.
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


McAdam, W.
Robinson, K. (St. Pancras)
Willis, E.


McAllister, G.
Rogers, G. H. R.
Wills, Mrs. E. A.


McEntee, V. La T.
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


McGhee, H. G.
Royle, C.
Woods, G. S.


McGovern, J.
Scollan, T.
Wyatt, W.


McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Scott-Elliot, W.
Yates, V. F.


Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N. W.)
Sharp Granville
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


McKinlay, A. S.
Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Maclean, N. (Govan)
Shawcross, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (St. Helens)



MacMitlan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Shurmer, P.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Silverman, J. (Erdington)
Mr. Collindridge and Mr. Wilkins.


Macpherson, T. (Romford)
Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)





NOES


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
Bowen, R.
Channon, H.


Aitken, Hon. Max
Bower, N.
Clarke, Col, R. S.


Amory, D. Heathcoat
Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Clifton-Brown, Lt-Col. G.


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.
Bracken, Rt. Hon. Brendan
Cole, T. L.


Baldwin, A. E.
Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.
Conant, Maj. R. J. E.


Barlow, Sir J.
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.
Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)


Baxter, A. B.
Brown, W. J. (Rugby)
Crookshank, Capt. Rt Hon. H. F. C.


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.
Bullock, Capt. M.
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.


Bennett, Sir P.
Butcher, H. W.
Crowder, Capt. John F.


Birch, Nigel
Byers, Frank
Cuthbert, W. N.


Boles, Lt.-Col, D. C. (Wells)
Carson, E.
Davidson, Viscountess


Boothby, R.
Challen, C.
Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)







De la Bere, R.
Langford-Holt, J.
Prescott, Stanley


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Raikes, H. V.


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Rayner, Brig. R.


Donner, P. W.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)


Dower, Col. A. V. G. (Penrith)
Lindsay, M. (Solihull)
Renton, D.


Drayson, G. B.
Linstead, H. N.
Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)


Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)
Lipson, D. L.
Roberts, H. (Handsworth)


Duthie, W. S.
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)
Roberts, P. G. (Ecclesall)


Eccles, D. M.
Low, A. R. W.
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Lucas, Major Sir J.
Ropner, Col. L.


Elliot, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon Walter
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)


Erroll, F. J.
MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.
Sanderson, Sir F.


Fleming, Sqn.-Ldr. E. L.
McCallum, Maj. D.
Savory, Prof. D. L.


Foster, J. G. (Northwich)
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.
Scott, Lord W.


Fox, Sir G.
Macdonald, Sir P. (I. of Wight)
Shephard, S. (Newark)


Fraser, H. C. P. (Stone)
McFarlane, C. S.
Shepherd, W. S. (Bucktow)


Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W.


Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P. M.
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Smith, E. P. (Ashford)


Gage, C.
Maclay, Hon. J. S.
Smithers, Sir W.


Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)
Maclean, F. H. R. (Lancaster)
Snadden, W. M.


Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Spence, H. R.


Gammans, L. D.
Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Gates, Maj. E. E.
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.
Strauss, Henry (English Universities)


Glyn, Sir R.
Manningham-Buller, R. E.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Studholme, H. G.


Gridley, Sir A.
Marples, A. E.
Sutcliffe, H.


Grimston, R. V.
Marsden, Capt. A.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd't'n, S.)


Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Teeling, William


Harden, J. R. E.
Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)
Maude, J. C.
Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)


Harris, F. W. (Croydon, N.)
Medlicott, Brigadier F.
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Harvey, Air-Comdre, A. V.
Mellor, Sir J.
Thorp, Brigadier R. A. F.


Haughton, S. G.
Molson, A. H. E.
Touche, G. C.


Head, Brig. A. H.
Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T.
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C.
Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)
Vane, W. M. F.


Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Morrison, Rt. Hn. W. S. (Cirencester)
Wakefield, Sir W. W.


Hogg, Hon. Q.
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Walker-Smith, D.


Hollis, M. C.
Mullan, Lt. C. H.
Ward, Hon. G. R.


Holmes, Sir J. Stanley (Harwich)
Neill, Sir William (Belfast, N.)
Wheatley, Colonel M. J. (Dorset, E.)


Hope, Lord J.
Neven-Spence, Sir B.
White, Sir D. (Fareham)


Howard, Hon. A.
Nicholson, G.
White, J. B. (Canterbury)


Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)
Nield, B. (Chester)
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Hulbert, Wing-Cdr. N. J.
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Nutting, Anthony
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)
Odey, G. W.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Jeffreys, General Sir G.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon Sir H.
York, C.


Jennings, R.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)


Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.



Kerr, Sir J. Graham
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Kingsmill, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Pickthorn, K.
Mr. Buchan-Hepburn and


Lambert, Hon. G.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
Mr. Drewe.


Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)



Question put, and agreed to.

IRELAND BILL

As amended, considered.

Clause 1.—(CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS.)

7.43 p.m.

The Attorney-General (Sir Hartley Shawcross): I beg to move, in page 1, line 5, to leave out from the beginning to "that" in line 6, and to insert:
(1) It is hereby recognised and declared.
Perhaps it would be for the convenience of the House to discuss at the same time the next two Amendments in lines 10 and 12. These three Amendments, which are related to each other, are really drafting Amendments, designed to meet a point raised in Committee last night in regard to this Clause where, as

at present drafted, instead of using the ordinary phrase, "It is hereby enacted," or as the case may be, we use the expression "Parliament hereby" It was said that the form of words at present used was unusual. I would not, I think, have withdrawn it for that reason alone, but the hon. and learned Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) pointed out that, whilst of course it is the fact that Parliament consists of the King, the Lords and the Commons, it might not be realised by all people that that was so, and that they might think that the departure from the usual language had some significance and implied something which it was not intended to imply.
We recognise the importance of that point. It is, of course, of the utmost importance that the position of the Crown should not be involved one way or


another in legislation of this kind. The point having been made, I thought it right to withdraw the form of words we had used and to substitute a more normal phrase. We have retained the other distinction in the Clause, that we recognise and declare certain things, and with those I think the House will agree.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I should just like to say "Thank you" to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for meeting us on this point. In my opinion, it is more than drafting, and the Bill as it will be amended, in line with the suggestion put forward from this side of the House, makes clear that there is no distinction to be drawn in this Clause between the King on the one hand and Parliament on the other. It is quite clear to lawyers that Parliament does include the King; but, after all, in the course of history, particularly in Stuart times, the term "Parliament" was often used as meaning not that. I think this does improve the Bill, because it removes any possibility of this Clause being misunderstood in this connection, and I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for meeting us in this way.

Mr. John Beattie: I cannot in the same tones or the same words extend my gratitude or thanks to the Government. I think that the position now created drives the wedge of partition more deeply into the body of Ireland. I do feel that this Government has done a very——

Mr. Speaker: That has nothing to do with the Amendment under discussion, which is merely a drafting Amendment to substitute the words "It is hereby recognised and declared" in place of the words "Parliament hereby." We have not yet reached the Third Reading.

Mr. Gallacher: I thought the hon. Gentleman was about to ask a question, following the remarks made by the hon. and learned Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) on Second Reading and during the Committee stage, that of course a Bill of this kind does not commit future Governments. The hon. Gentleman says that this alteration of wording makes a significant change which the Attorney-General did not seem to understand. I should like to know whether this change involves anything

of the nature suggested by the hon. and learned Member for Daventry, or whether it would take away from future Parliaments the right to make a change.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 1, line 10, leave out "(b) declares," and insert: "(2) It is hereby declared."

In line 12, leave out "affirms," and insert: "it is hereby affirmed."

In page 2, line 3, leave out "paragraph (a) of."—[The Attorney-General.]

7.49 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. Philip Noel-Baker): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
I do not propose to raise again the controversial issues which occupied us during the two days of our Debates. I should like to draw attention to some points, as I think points of great importance, which seem to have been rather obscured by those Debates; points on which I hope we shall fix our attention as we leave the Bill, and which I hope all instructed persons here and elsewhere will in future bear in mind.
This Bill results from a decision which, as so many of us have said, we all regret: the decision of the Government of Eire to leave the Commonwealth. We all recognise that Eire was free to leave the Commonwealth. In the words of the right hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden), the Commonwealth is a voluntary association and if a nation wants to go out, none of us would bar the way. But that decision being made, we had to settle the future relations between the people and the Government of the new Republic and the people and Government of this country—of what kind was it to be?
In considering that problem, the Prime Minister said last autumn that we must think of the ties of kinship and the traditional and long-established economic, social and trade connections based on common interest. He went on to say:
The United Kingdom Government are at once with the Government of Eire in desiring that close and friendly relations should continue and be strengthened."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th November, 1948; Vol. 458, c. 1414.]


That was the starting point of this Bill. I think that perhaps its most important single purpose is to lay it down that, although Eire has ceased to be part of His Majesty's Dominions, yet it is not to be treated as a foreign country and the citizens of the new Republic shall not be aliens in our land; we decided that international law was made for man and not man for international law.
That new departure has been endorsed in every quarter of the House. The right hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington said that the special relationship existing between our two countries, the constant coming and going of citizens between Ireland and the United Kingdom, would make it ridiculous for either country to treat the people of the other as aliens, if by any reasonable means that could be avoided. He thought that this was a reasonable means, and that is why he gave support to the Bill.
The right hon. and learned Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe) even found a precedent. He went back nearly 200 years to 1761, and found some countries, united by a dynastic tie, which decided that their citizens should not be foreigners in each other's countries. He ended by saying that the line we are taking rested on the far firmer and surer basis of common sense. I think it is a great thing that the whole House is agreed on this new principle of mutual benefit, both to the new Republic and to the United Kingdom, and I hope that the people of the new Republic will also think that it is a great thing we have done.
One other point has struck me about our Debates. Unsolved Irish problems can still rouse passion, as they have done in times gone by, but I venture to think that there is no one in this House today who believes that force can help to solve these problems in any way. Not even my hon. Friend the Member for West Belfast (Mr. J. Beattie) doubts that force would make them worse. No one believes that any minority should be coerced. We all believe that the hope of progress lies in better understanding and in co-operation to promote the common interest which our peoples share—to battle together against poverty and ignorance, and the other problems which we still must face. We think that this Measure provides a practical and reasonable solution

for practical problems for which we are not responsible but which we have to solve. We hope that it will be so accepted here and elsewhere, and in that hope I commend the Bill.

7.54 p.m.

Mr. Eden: The Dominion Secretary has certainly found eloquent words with which to grace the last stages of our discussions on this Bill. I, for one, found myself completely in agreement with all that he said. None the less, it is for me and, I think, for most of us a melancholy occasion. I so much hoped that this last tenuous thread would hold until such time as the forces on both sides gathered to bring us closer together. It is an unhappy reflection that at much the same time as one of our partners in the Commonwealth family has definitely decided to stay, another should have decided it prefers to go. However, that is the decision and we must take it in the spirit in which the right hon. Gentleman has taken it tonight. Therefore, I want to add nothing that can possibly cause any dissension at this stage.
I think it is probably true that patience is the strongest ally of statesmanship. At least, if we can show ourselves patient in these events, the reward will perhaps come a little later on. My chief regret is that I think it is making it more difficult for North and South to come together, which is a solution, whether our friends in North and South believe it or not, which the ordinary Englishman would most like to see. It is a pity, but nothing is unalterable in time, and maybe changes will come about to make that possible.
I wish to add only this. If only in Dublin they will understand the spirit in which this House has sought to deal with this Bill, I feel that much of their recent eloquence would not have to be repeated. Maybe, if they could capture the tone which these poor, limited Englishmen sometimes contrive to produce—I must be careful here—I was going to say the brilliance, or something like it, might be a little tempered with the thought that perhaps the people with whom they do not agree might also have a point of view. If each could be persuaded that the other has a point of view, we should reach a stage in Irish affairs which, unhappily we


have not yet unhappily arrived at. This Bill is a phase which has to be gone through to bring us to the port we want to reach, and I join with the right hon. Gentleman in supporting its Third Reading.

7.57 p.m.

Mr. Mathers: When this Bill came before the House for its Second Reading it was introduced in a felicitous and wise speech by the Prime Minister. Similarly, we have had wise speeches as we take leave of it and send it to another place. I must say that I share the regrets that are being expressed that we have this Bill at all. I am not seeking to be embittered about the reason for this Bill having to come before us, but certainly the reason was not one of our making but was brought about by those who had taken the decision to remove a Dominion from the family of nations of our Commonwealth. How far the reasons for that are bound up with competitive political considerations in Eire none of us, I am sure, will be wishing to enlarge upon now. The fact is that the decision was taken and it was necessary for this House to do something about it. The something we have done is included in the compass of a very small Bill, important though it is.
I made reference to the fact that the atmosphere at the beginning of the proceedings on this Bill and the atmosphere now is very calm and peaceful. I think there could have been very much more of that kind of spirit during the whole proceedings on the Bill had it not been for some of the terms used in the Bill itself and the fears that have arisen as a result of some of these terms being used, which might, if proper consideration had been given to the drafting, made it much more universally acceptable to this House. We know that it was inevitable that we should make declarations about recognising the position of Eire, and I believe it was equally necessary that we should make a declaration about the position of Northern Ireland. But I think that the declaration in relation to Northern Ireland, in putting it on record that
in no event will Northern Ireland or any part thereof cease to be a part of His Majesty's dominions and of the United Kingdom without the consent of the Parliament of Northern Ireland.

is perhaps the bone of contention which has caused the greatest apprehension.
Although we are told by Ministers of the Crown—and I accept their assurances—that this does not bind us finally in any way the words themselves do seem to be very firm and definite and intended to last. When better feelings have been developed between Northern and Southern Ireland, and the time comes when there may be a possibility of them coming together, it is regrettable that the Parliament of Northern Ireland will be the arbiter. The reason I regret that the Parliament of Northern Ireland is mentioned in this way is because a Parliament is an instrument and an instrument is something which is subject to change at any time. There is a fear in the minds of those who can speak with much more authority about Irish matters than I can that when anything is required to be done to make things more certain for one party in Northern Ireland, the Northern Ireland Parliament can be manipulated to that end. That is something which to us all is a matter for great regret.
I know it would not be in Order to go back on the Amendments which were moved to Clause 1 yesterday, but if, for instance, we had inserted the words "people of Northern Ireland" instead of "Parliament of Northern Ireland" I believe that many of the apprehensions felt on this side of the House would have been met. Instead of that we are laying it down that whenever the time comes when there may be a rapprochement between Northern and Southern Ireland the arbiter is to be the Parliament of Northern Ireland. It is, of course, true that the action of Eire in going outside the Commonwealth has put off the day when all within the borders of the Emerald Isle might come within the jurisdiction of one Parliament. There is no doubt that that day has been considerably postponed because of the action taken by the Government of Eire. I hope, however, that that day will not be too long postponed, for it is logical and reasonable to expect that there should be unity of all within the boundaries of the island we know as Ireland.
By sticking rigidly to the term "Northern Ireland" we impose upon those who will have to make a decision at the appropriate time the necessity for keeping to what is laid down in the Bill.


I accept the statement of Ministers that the normal way of reaching decisions of this kind is through a body of representatives elected to Parliament. But in the days and years that lie ahead there may be a change in practice and in outlook, and I regret that we are tying down those who may have to make the decision. To many the Parliament of Northern Ireland is suspect. I am not saying that I agree or disagree——

Mr. McKie: Come down on one side or the other.

Mr. Mathers: In making a declaration on that topic I will go only so far as to quote the old Scottish proverb:
There's aye some water where the stirkie droons.
That might, alternatively, be rendered, "There is no smoke without fire." The statements we have heard about actions in Northern Ireland in the political sense cause us some regret, and lead us to doubt the use of words in the Bill which bind so firmly those who are to succeed us. However, I hope that the spirit in which the Bill has been dealt with in the House will be recognised by all on on the other side of the Irish Sea who have to come under its terms. I still look forward to the day, which is longed for by many Irishmen, not only in Eire, but elsewhere, when there will be real unity in the Emerald Isle and when those who live in that island will be able so to conduct themselves and manage their affairs that they will, at long last, achieve that unity in Ireland which seems so logical.

8.9 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Cuthbert Headlam (Newcastle-upon-Tyne, North): I think it unfortunate that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Mathers) should have taken the line that he has taken in his speech. It is unfortunate because the matter referred to was so fully dealt with yesterday that it seemed unnecessary to drag it out again. The right hon. Gentleman had no reason whatever to suppose that the Parliament of Northern Ireland will do anything improper. That suggestion was unreasonable in a Debate of this kind, in which we are all trying to do our best to adopt a conciliatory attitude.
No one could have listened to the discussions on this Bill without realising

that there is no one in the House who really likes it, or would have introduced it if it could possibly have been avoided. Of course, no one denies the complete right of the State of Eire to go out of the Commonwealth if it so chooses. It is laid down in the Statute of Westminster that any Dominion can leave the Commonwealth if it so wishes. But I remember that when we were discussing the Statute of Westminster in this House——

Mr. Gallacher: On a point of Order. In this Bill there is reference to the Republic of Ireland. Is it in Order to introduce any reference to a State of Eire which is not in the Bill. We are discussing the Republic of Ireland

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): I must be permitted to hear what the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is going to say. I gather that he is perhaps going to draw some comparison.

Sir C. Headlam: All I said was "When the State of Eire decided to become an independent republic." If the hon. Member had listened to me he would have understood—or he might have understood.
I do not suppose it occurred to many of us when we were discussing the Statute of Westminster, indeed I do not suppose that it occurred to any of us, that any Dominion would wish to leave the Commonwealth, and it is a great disappointment to many of us that that has been the case with the new Republic in Ireland.

Mr. Gallacher: Of Ireland.

Sir C. Headlam: I think that it is a pity that if the State of Eire felt that it should become a republic it should not have adopted the same course as India, and remained a republic within the British Commonwealth. Personally, I do not much care about that kind of position. It seems to me that the best form of Government in the world is the constitutional monarchy of this country, and it is a real disappointment to those who feel as I feel that India should have decided to become a republic and no longer to owe direct allegiance to the Crown. But India does at any rate remain within the Commonwealth.
The State of Eire, however, has decided to become entirely independent of the


Commonwealth. It can only remain independent, if one examines the real facts, so long as this country is in a position to protect it. It is perfectly obvious that if this country ceased to be British, if the British nation succumbed in any great war, the independent Republic of Ireland would not exist for long. We now know that had Hitler won the war there were not only to be gauleiters in this country but there was to be one in Dublin. It is obvious that should anyone defeat us the independent Republic of Ireland would most certainly come under the same dominion as that under which we should come. The independence of Republican Ireland is, therefore, rather a make-believe business.
From this country's point of view, nevertheless, the fact that the greater part of Ireland should be independent is a matter of great concern strategically. This question has not been raised, so far as I can remember, in the course of our Debates on this Bill, but it is and must remain a matter of vital importance to us. That is why it is so essential to us that no kind of action should be taken by the new Republic of Ireland which would in any way threaten Northern Ireland—the Six Counties in the North—so long as they wish to remain within the King's dominions.

Mr. W. R. Williams: Did I gather that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman thought that the speech made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow was rather unfortunate, having regard to the circumstances? If so, does he think that he is choosing a better line?

Sir C. Headlam: I think that I am choosing a very sound line, which might have been taken by the right hon. Gentleman. It is not provocative, it is pointing out facts and is not insinuating anything against anyone, which is what the right hon. Gentleman seemed to be doing in his speech.
In view of the institution of an independent Republic in Ireland it is quite illogical on our part to allow Irish citizens to have the same privileges as British citizens—we are all agreed on that—but most of us realise that because of the juxtaposition of the two countries and because of the economic links which unite them, it is the only sensible policy to

adopt. This House is wise in having decided to accept the Government's proposal to that effect. I should have been quite prepared to treat the Irish Republicans as aliens; it would be reasonable to do SO. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] For the reason that they are not citizens of the Commonwealth. But I quite realise that that would be impracticable and lead to more difficulties.
I could not, however, vote for this Bill unless it contained Clause 1 (1, b). That seems to me to be essential. It was necessary to reaffirm the position of the Northern Counties as still belonging to the British Commonwealth of Nations and as being within the King's dominions. I do not think that the wording of that provision could have been very different. As it stands it certainly does not in the least mean that the separation between the two sections of the Irish people should be permanent. Some Members have, in the course of the Debate, tried to suggest that that was the intention or meaning of the words in the paragraph to which I am referring. I do not agree in the least with that suggestion. Everything that has been said by the Government spokesmen has demonstrated quite clearly that they at any rate are not in favour of the permanent partition of the country. From our side, the same hopes have been expressed—that sooner or later the two sections of the Irish people will come together again and form a united country. I hope profoundly that if that day ever comes, they will decide no longer to be an independent Republic but to become once again a Dominion within the British Commonwealth.

8.18 p.m.

Mr. Delargy: Before this Bill leaves us on its journey to another place, I must say a few words. They will be few, and this time at least they will not be controversial. Most of the Clauses in this Bill have my full support. As the House knows, there is a part of one subsection to which I am most strongly opposed, and my hon. Friends and I endeavoured to have it altered during the Committee stage. We were not successful, but we did our best, and the House and the Government heard us with fairness and not, I think, without sympathy.
I do not think that we should oppose the Third Reading of this Bill. It was not easy or pleasant for my hon. Friends


and myself to oppose the Government in the various stages of this Bill. We did it because we felt obliged to do it, because we believed we were right. I am sure that the Government will ultimately agree that we were right. I am convinced that in the long run they will be rather pleased that a handful of us followed the difficult course which we did. Many Members have expressed regret, as well they might, that this situation has been forced upon us. It has been suggested several times from the Front Bench that the severance of this last link with the Commonwealth came as a shock and without warning to the Government. If that is correct, it is a very serious statement. I feel that some communications must have passed between the two Governments, and if that is so—I do not know whether it is or not—in view of the deep feeling which has been aroused in this matter, perhaps the Government would consider issuing those communications in a White Paper.
This Bill will shortly become law. We must make the best of it. But, above all, it is the duty of everyone who has any influence at all, here in Britain or in Dublin or in Belfast, to use that influence towards calm and discretion. In any upheaval it is always the innocent who suffer most. It is always the poor and the minorities who suffer first and who suffer most.

Mr. Ellis Smith: And the working classes.

Mr. Delargy: It is always the poor and the minorities who suffer first and who suffer most. It is our duty and the duty of those responsible in the North of Ireland, as well as in the South, to protect the innocent and to preserve peace. God grant that the day will soon come when all Irishmen can live together in harmony in their own fair country.

8.22 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Walter Smiles: It would be untrue to suggest that Northern Ireland welcomes this Bill. It would be much better if conditions had remained the same as they were before 18th April and Eire were still a part of the British Commonwealth. I mistrust republics. So many of them start off fairly, as they did in Spain and Germany, and afterwards become police States. Words such as "graft" and "political boss" never started under constitutional monarchies. I read only this morning

in the newspaper suggestions that if Mr. Costello had not declared Eire a Republic, Mr. de Valera would have done so and forced his hand, and that both Mr. Costello and Mr. de Valera were afraid of the extremists in their own country. I sincerely hope that Eire will never go the way that Spain has gone.
Speaking on Clause 1 yesterday, the hon. Member for Rochdale (Dr. Morgan) certainly spoke the truth when he said that the number of Roman Catholics in Northern Ireland was increasing. I wish I were able to say that the number of Protestants was increasing in Eire. Their numbers have gone down from 320,000 in 1921 to 180,000 today. As a result of Clause 1, I think these numbers are likely to fall still lower if we are to take the situation in the urban council of Athy, County Kildare, as any indication. When Mr. Nolan, the chairman of that urban council, criticised the Protestants in Athy and threatened them——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is now going far beyond the confines of the contents of this Bill. I hope he will not proceed on those lines.

Sir W. Smiles: This matter arose in the course of the Debate yesterday, and was referred to by the hon. Member for Rochdale. However, I shall leave it at that. As the number of Roman Catholics has increased in Northern Ireland, I am certain that thousands of them voted in the last election for the Union. I have heard criticisms today of the Government of Northern Ireland. I should like to put on record in this House that Roman Catholics are better treated in Northern Ireland than in England. Take the financial contributions to education——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Those detailed questions really do not arise on the Third Reading of this Bill. I am sorry, but the hon. and gallant Member must not proceed with them. They clearly do not arise.

Sir W. Smiles: The right hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Mathers) criticised the Parliament of Northern Ireland, and I was alluding to the action of the Parliament of Northern Ireland in looking after their minorities. At any rate, I do not intend to delve into the past in the same way as the hon. Member for


Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) did yesterday. I should not go into the passionate reasons why Northern Ireland still desires to remain a part of the United Kingdom. I appreciate that it is very difficult indeed for people who live in counties like Cornwall and Norfolk to understand our position. They have not had to resist constant attempts to drive them out of the United Kingdom by intrigue, bribes or threats.
Our first loyalty is to the United Kingdom and to the British Commonwealth, and we realise in Northern Ireland that whatever party occupies the Front Bench opposite is His Majesty's Government. We on this side are Conservatives, and we have opposed very many of the Government's Measures, but I hope that when we have opposed them we have been constructive and not destructive. I have fought elections in England and I have fought and seen elections in Northern Ireland. I remember that in 1931, the Socialists lost their election. When they came back they were dignified in their loss. In the same way, when we lost the last election we on these benches were also dignified. I am surprised, when things are said in this Debate against the Northern Ireland Parliament, that people who lost their election in Northern Ireland last time should come running over here like crybabies and complain.

Mr. Logan: is the hon. and gallant Member trying to smooth things out?

Sir W. Smiles: I consider that this Government has been very generous indeed to the citizens of Eire. I think the English people are generous and tolerant, and the same applies to the Scots and the Welsh. I do not intend to say those words again, because we in Northern Ireland say that it is very dangerous to give people too good a conceit of themselves. I never intend to say anything against people such as the citizens of London, particularly in view of their sufferings so bravely borne for five years during the war. How can we be anything but glad to be connected with people like them? At the same time, we wish no ill to the new Republic of Ireland when assent is given for it to be called by that name. I hope that they

will prosper. I hope they will be happy, but never to reign over us.
We in Northern Ireland appreciate that the taxation in Eire is lower than it is here. Their Income Tax is 6s. 6d. in the £ and ours is 9s. in the £. We have had a capital levy or a Special Contribution here. They have not had one in Eire. At the same time, being an agricultural country, the food is better there than it is in London. There is no need for this country to starve, but at the same time I expect that we shall all have to tighten our belts. The people in Northern Ireland would much sooner live with the people of Britain in food-rationing conditions, than in affluence with Eire. We are not prepared to sell our birthright for a mess of pottage. It is fair to thank every party—I know it is dangerous and it embarrasses one's political opponents to thank them—in this House, because all have helped to put this Bill through and to make Ulster's position clear. I take this opportunity to thank all in this House who have helped.

8.31 p.m.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: I have no doubt whatever that the hon. and gallant Member for Down (Sir W. Smiles) was intending to make a helpful and co-operative speech, but if that is the best he can do, and the best contribution he can make to a very difficult situation, I hope I shall not be here when he is in a mood to make a dangerous or mischievous speech. For my part I have not had the opportunity of taking part in any of the Debates on the Committee stage of this Bill. Not even an Irishman would want to create the atmosphere of a Donnybrook Fair the morning after. I certainly have no intention of doing so, but I spent the week-end in Dublin, returning only today, and I should like, not having had an opportunity before, to take advantage, so far as the rules of Order permit, of the Third Reading of the Bill to indicate my own view.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) said that this was a melancholy occasion. There is no reason why the attainment of full and independent sovereign nationhood by any people which desires it should be regarded as melancholy, and certainly not in this House. The question whether the occasion is melancholy or


not from our point of view depends on whether the event we are legislating today to recognise is one that brings the two nations nearer together or puts them further apart. This matter is not one which really depends upon symbols. Undoubtedly to the greater part of the Commonwealth of Nations the Crown is a symbol of unity, but anyone with any idea of the history of this matter would have no doubt that to what is now the Republic of Ireland the Crown has been another kind of symbol—a symbol reminding them of seven or eight centuries of history which they rightly or wrongly believe was a period of tyranny and oppression. It can well have been that what is a symbol of unity to so vast an area as the Commonwealth of Nations could be better dispensed with in the case of the Republic of Ireland, provided the result were to bring the two nations closer together and not to drive them further apart.
The melancholy feature of these proceedings is that what might so easily have been a Measure to bring the peoples together has been unnecessarily changed into one that drives them apart. Do not let us deceive ourselves. I am not arguing now whether the Measure is better, or seeking to say who is right or who is wrong. I am sure that no one in this House has any doubt that the presence in the Bill of parts of Clause 1, and perhaps the whole of Clause 1, is the only thing which the great majority of the people of Ireland are conscious of today. Without it, the Bill would have been a great healer. It does not matter whether it is very logical or whether it is very consistent. What was desired on both sides was to prevent the occasion of the repeal of the External Relations Act in the Republic of Ireland from driving the nations further apart than they need go.
The constitutional machinery set up in the Bill was admirable for the purpose, and was enthusiastically welcomed on this side and on the other side of the Irish Channel because it meant that whether they formally went out or formally stayed in, they would not have been a foreign country and that their citizens were not, from our point of view or from theirs, to be aliens or foreigners in this country. If the Bill had stood there and had not contained this offending Clause, this would not have been a melancholy occasion at all. It would have been an occasion

for mutual rejoicings on both sides of the dividing sea. It would have been perhaps the first occasion in the whole history of Anglo-Irish relations in which the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom were completely at one.
I may be wrong, but it seems to me that in the Republic of Ireland there is a very great desire, even now, to be friends with us. They do not regard the repeal of the External Relations Act as being the occasion for further hostility, suspicion or fear. They thought it paved the way by removing what was, to them at any rate, the obnoxious symbol and substituting a real association of peoples. We all stood to benefit by that. What has prevented it? Clause 1 of the Bill. Try as I will, I cannot understand why it was necessary to put it in. It seems clumsy to convert what might have been a unifying act of statesmanship into a new Irish quarrel, in order to enact a Clause which we ourselves declare does not alter the law and does not bind anybody.
There are times when we have to take risks in all sorts of directions in order to effect a change in the law that we believe to be necessary, or to make sure that a thing is permanent if we believe that it ought to be permanent. When we say that what we are doing cannot bind a subsequent Parliament and cannot even bind a subsequent Session of this Parliament, and when we add that what we are doing effects no change in the law, it passes all understanding to realise why it is necessary to pass a Clause like that if the result of so doing is to betray the constructive purposes which we had in mind when the Bill was devised and laid before the House. It may be that it is not intended to be only declaratory or not to make any change in the law. In the Debate yesterday my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General used some phrases which I found difficult to understand. It is true that I am only quoting from an intervention in somebody else's speech. He said:
This Bill affirms the solemn intention of all parties represented in this Parliament that Northern Ireland should not be excluded from the United Kingdom without its consent. It affirms that as being the view of all parties in this Parliament, knowing, however, that every subsequent Parliament will be free, if it so desires, to come to a contrary conclusion."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th May, 1949; Vol. 465, c. 131.]


I do not understand how an Act of Parliament declares the intention of parties. I cannot think of any other Act of Parliament which was expressly intended in the opinion of anyone to give effect in so many words to the opinion of parties. What parties are bound by this Bill? The Labour Party? I do not know. It may be so, but I do not think that we have reached a stage in this country when any Act of Parliament will bind the policy of any political party in the State. Our Constitution does not recognise parties. It seems to me that if the intention of putting his declaratory Clause into the Bill was to bind the future policy or recommendations of all parties or any party, it is singularly ineffective to do so.
I am certain that there will be many people in many parties who will think that the partition of Ireland was right in principle and ought never to be changed, and others who will think that it was wrong in principle, ought never to have happened and ought to be changed as soon as possible. I do not know anybody who thinks it ought to be changed by force, but it is idle to say that the intention of an Act of Parliament is to bind the hands of political parties as to what policies they will recommend in future. I rejoice that that should be so, because if that were effective through this Bill, it would mean that the Clause is far more than declaratory. Constitutionally it cannot be anything more.
This is what I understand is said about it in the Republic of Ireland. They do not quarrel with the constitutional interpretation. They do not pretend for a moment that the repeal of the External Relations Act or the passing of this Bill could in the least affect the constitutional position of Northern Ireland. They did not accept that the Government of the United Kingdom, even this Government, could step in and do anything about it now. However, this is the reason why they object to the Clause. They say that by putting it into the Bill in this declaratory form we are re-enacting after a quarter of a century something which we always opposed, giving it new legislative sanction, giving it new moral authority, lending it the support of groups which never gave it support before. For that reason, they say, it makes the progress of united feeling in

Ireland more difficult. I saw placards on the walls in Dublin in connection with their recent elections. One of them was a quotation from James Connolly, who was executed in 1916. The quotation was only one sentence:
The cause of labour is the cause of Ireland.
[An HON. MEMBER: "And the world."] On that basis they were building up relationships between North and South. The trade unions were undivided, most of them at any rate. The Trades Union Congress had much in common in social legislation, and they exchanged ideas and met together at conferences. They always managed to leave aside controversial questions of politics and religion. They say, however, that to put in this Clause and re-enact it with all the authority and moral prestige of a Labour Government in this country, which has always been against it, is to make it much more difficult for them to proceed with this peaceful and constructive work which might have ended partition by agreement.
That is what seems to me to be so sad about it all. Here was a situation in which was the desire and the opportunity to bring great healing to a centuries-old quarrel, to bitterness and passion and mutual recrimination. To throw that all away for the sake of a mere declaration, which does not alter the law and which does not tie the hands or bind the mind of anybody, seems to me to have been a tragic blunder of the first order. Many of us will find it difficult to explain why it was put in. I do not think the matter has ever been really explained.
That is all I wanted to say. If I had been here yesterday I should have most certainly voted against the inclusion of Clause 1 in the Bill. I do not propose to take any such course today. I would prefer that, in spite of all that has occurred, we should use this moment in the spirit of my hon. Friend the Member for Platting (Mr. Delargy) who made so helpful and generous and constructive a speech. I hope that in the end nothing may be lost, but, if it is not to be, I think we shall need to conduct our international relations—because that is what they now are—with a greater spirit of tact and understanding than that which has led to the inclusion of this Clause in the Bill.

8.48 p.m.

Sir Patrick Hannon: The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) has treated the House to one of his delightful disquisitions which we have in this House from time to time. He is always interesting and he has just come back from Dublin where, no doubt, a little extra inspiration has been infused into his thoughtful examination of this difficult and embarrassing relationship to which he has referred.
I am indeed in a condition of great melancholy this evening in addressing the House. I spent my younger years in Ireland. I served in the Irish agricultural movement for several years. I was associated with a distinguished patriot of the past, Sir Horace Plunkett, and I worked with the Irish Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction and with the Congested Districts Board. After all these years, and having taken part in constructive agricultural organisation in Northern and Southern Ireland, I look upon the detachment of Eire from the Commonwealth of Nations as a tragedy of the gravest kind in our time. I have spent a great many years of my life in the promotion of various movements in the Empire. I served in one of the Dominions for several years, and in nearly every movement in this country during my time to strengthen the unity of the Empire, and when I reflect upon the modest part which I have played it is a matter of profound grief to me that a country which has made such a contribution to the progress of the Empire in the past, should now be detached from it in these sad and depressing days in which we live.
I was particularly gratified at the way in which the Bill was presented to the House by the Prime Minister. We ought to be proud of our Prime Minister on occasions of that kind. His presentations are always made with that genial, kindly and considerate measure of good will which makes the whole House feel the sincerity and constructive purpose of whatever communication he makes to the House. I was also delighted at the way in which my right hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) followed the Prime Minister's introduction of the Bill. The atmosphere of the House has, on the whole, been

extremely kind to this difficult and tantalising question of the relations between Northern and Southern Ireland, and I was particularly glad that the hon. Member for Platting (Mr. Delargy) decided not to divide the House this evening on the Third Reading of the Bill.
When I reflect how many Irishmen in my time have done so much in various parts of the world for the Imperial cause, the cause of the Commonwealth as it exists today, I feel how sad it is that while no doubt the spirit of kindly feeling and good will will still survive as between Eire and ourselves in this country, nevertheless it is a pity that the work which those men achieved is now detached—at all events, in substance detached—from this country and their own country. Think of the contribution that has been made to the advancement of the British Empire by Dublin University. Years ago, the Indian Civil Service was recruited in a large measure from that University. Think of the contribution made by those who went to the old Royal University of Ireland, now the National University, in Dublin. Think upon the wisdom and statesmanship shown by a great many Irishmen in the Dominions and throughout every country in the Colonial Empire. This is indeed, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington said, a melancholy occasion in this House for those of us who were born in Ireland.
I should like particularly to say how much I endorse the expression of good feeling in all parts of the House with regard to the future relations between Northern Ireland and Eire. It was my work in the past to organise a whole variety of agricultural activities in Northern Ireland as well as in Eire, and I found the people of Ulster genial, kindly, understanding and hardworking; perhaps more vigorous in character than my own people in the South but, nevertheless, people of whom any nation might be proud. The only suggestion I would make to my Ulster friends is this: That as far as is consistent with the decencies of life, all the acerbities between one religious outlook and another may be entirely washed out of public life in the future.
Many of us in this House have received complaints from people in Ulster of what might be called unfair treatment of


Catholics by the Protestant community with regard to public appointments and of preferential treatment in various respects in public life in the Six Counties. Those complaints may have been exaggerated, I think, but I would appeal particularly to my right hon. Friend the senior Member for Antrim (Sir H. O'Neill), who is so conspicuous in the promotion of the interests of Ulster, who has served this House so well and who was at one time Speaker of the House of Commons in Ulster, that, with all his friends, they will do everything in their power to soften these bitternesses, forget the past and unhappy historical memories, and to do everything which lies within their power to work for the good government of Northern Ireland. That is the appeal I make to my hon. Friends.
I was sorry that in the process of the Debate some bitter references were made and, occasionally, perhaps there was a little provocation. In Ireland that kind of provocation has been welded into our history for 700 years and the sooner it is eliminated—and I hope this Measure will make some contribution towards its elimination—the better it will be for Ireland, and, I think, for Western Europe as well. Eire can play a considerable part in the development of Western economic and social life. We had in this House last night a distinguished statesman who dwelt on the importance of Western Europe being co-ordinated with all its economic power to maintain the future of European organisation. I hope that North and South will fulfil the hopes expressed in the closing sentences of the Prime Minister and my right hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington, and that the deep feeling that pervades all this question will have hopeful reactions in a country which is still a great country, a lovable country, a country whose people have throughout the world played a conspicuous part in the progress of our times.

8.57 p.m.

Mr. John Beattie: On the examination of the amended Bill now before the House for Third Reading, I must say that I regret that the attitude of the Government has been such that the Bill is in its final stages and will become an Act of Parliament. But in that amended Bill one thing of

a concessional nature has been granted. I notice that in paragraph (b) of Clause 1 the grand title of Northern Ireland has been given to the Six Counties of North-Eastern Ulster. That title is not in keeping with its proper designation. The most northerly county in Ireland is Donegal, which operates under the Republic of Ireland. One would have thought that, with all the Parliamentary draftsmen and the legal knowledge and ingenuity at the disposal of the Government, they would immediately have seen that anomaly now appearing in the Bill.
At least one thing they have done, whether they know or not. No longer can these separatists in the North-East corner of Ulster classify themselves as "Ulster." That designation of these citizens of the six North-Eastern counties known under this Measure as Northern Ireland has gone for ever. "Ulster" must be dropped because it no longer applies to them. This area has been designated as Northern Ireland, subject to English support in every way. But we have not put in, that it is subject to a guarantee for the minority within these Six Counties, by this authority sitting here. I would have liked to see some form of words in this Bill that the minority must be guaranteed the rights and protection of this Parliament which is now transferring the power from themselves over to the Government of Northern Ireland. That I have not seen in this Bill.

Mr. Logan: They are not doing so.

Mr. Beattie: That is what I am saying, they are not doing so——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member, but that being so, he is not entitled to refer to the matter as it is not in the Bill.

Mr. Beattie: Pardon me, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I was referring to what the hon. Member for the Scotland Division (Mr. Logan) said. He says "They are not doing it." I do not want to be unduly long in my deliberations and criticism of this Bill as it now stands. But before I make any further criticisms of the Bill I would ask the House to pay strict and due attention to the thoughts and opinions expressed by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman). His clarification of the position was


worthy of consideration by the Government. He may be a minor unit within the Government Party, but there is wisdom in minor units of the Government as well as in the super-heads of the Government. Many times it is wise to take the opinions and aspirations of the back benchers, and I can assure the House that this Bill does not purport to represent the opinions of many of them that I have heard.
The Republic of Ireland was proclaimed on 18th April, and on the proclamation of that Republic they took up the position of opting out of the Commonwealth. That is the interpretation I have received from this Government of the reason why this Bill is now before this House. But did they study and consider the reason or the cause of 75 per cent. of the Irish counties opting out of the Commonwealth? Do they not know, as well as I know, that no nation which is in splinters can keep in the Commonwealth? The real cause of the opting out of 75 per cent. of the Irish counties is due to the Ulster Tories. If they had come in with the rest of Ireland, there is no reason under the sun why we could not be allowed as a nation to take our full part and play our full part in co-operation with other nations throughout the world. The people who are kicking the props from under the British Empire are not in the Republic of Ireland. It is the Tories in the Six Counties of Ireland. Those are the people to blame. Those are the people who denied us the right of the ports in their failure to recognise the citizenship and value of unity within the country in which they are earning very good livelihoods.
I wish to put at rest the mind of every hon. Member. So far as I am concerned I have done one man's part in trying to bring to the notice of this Government, whose authority it is to which I have to appeal. I have appealed to them from the Irish Labour movement of the Ireland that is now being mutilated by the British Labour movement. I have appealed to them to try to avoid such a mutilation. The ear has not been given to me. I have to return to Ireland. I am going back in a few hours a sadder but wiser man. I ask hon. Members to think of Socialism throughout the world—international brotherhood, the brotherhood of man.

What have we found today when an appeal has come from one section of that brotherhood to another section? Instead of giving the ear to them, they have given the ear to the Tories, the reactionary party of this country and of every country throughout the world.
At times during the consideration of this Bill I thought that I was about to see the Tories and the Government Front Benchers going across and throwing their arms around each other, kissing each other and saying one to the other, "God bless you." The Tories have now declared that they have won a great victory through the influence of the Front Bench which is representative of the great Labour movement outside. I am sorry that the day has arrived when I have seen this Tory and Socialist combination getting together with the one common thought of the defeat of the Irish working class.

Hon. Members: Nonsense.

Mr. Nally: What does the hon. Gentleman think that Costello is—a Socialist? He is a Tory of the toughest kind.

Mr. Beattie: We are as genuine in our desire to have a Socialist State as is this country.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That question does not arise on the Third Reading of this Bill. I have given the hon. Gentleman a good deal of latitude. He must deal with the contents of the Bill.

Mr. Beattie: I am very grateful to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but with the tragedy now taking place in the life of my motherland, I hope that if I have said anything contentious, this House will allow men to say that I feel sorry and that I wish to withdraw.
I want to say that we shall still go on. We shall continue our fight for independence for 32 counties. I wish to tell the Secretary of State for the Home Department that I am not a believer in physical force. I believe that force never was the solution of any problem. Force will never provide the solution of the Irish problem. It will only set it back. My only wish in this hour is that something at the moment unknown, something super or some super individual, will come with a solution whereby we as Irish from North and South can join together for the good of the whole. That is my one desire.
In my last remarks I wish to say that I know that very great risks have been


taken during the passage of this Bill by hon. Members on this side of the House. I know that the disciplinary rules of the Labour Party have been broken, but principles sometimes are greater than parties. I want to thank those courageous Members who have defied party discipline and helped me to register a protest on behalf of the Irish nation. I hope that the powers that be, who carry the authority of discipline, will recognise that the courage and devotion to the cause of unity for Ireland which was shown by those hon. Members was justifiable. Finally, I wish to say that this House has given me and my colleagues a very patient hearing. I leave this House as I say, a sadder but wiser man. I hope that the day is not long distant when something will come whereby happiness will be brought not only to me but to the people of Ireland as a whole, so that we can call ourselves Irishmen not only in 75 per cent. of the country but in 100 per cent.

9.10 p.m.

Professor Savory: I am not going to say anything to disturb the harmony of the proceedings which has hitherto prevailed. In fact, I can honestly say that I never said anything in this House to cause bitterness in any way whatever. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] No, never.
There are certain points which I must discuss in connection with this Bill. First of all, the point was raised last night, when I had not the opportunity of being here, concerning the title "Republic of Ireland." That is the title which is given in the Bill and to which I strongly object. I do not often have the audacity to interrupt the Prime Minister in this House, but, in spite of myself, I did so during the Second reading Debate, when the right hon. Gentleman said:
The fact is that the name 'The Republic of Ireland' is that selected by the Irish Government. It has been embodied in their legislation, and when any country adopts a name it is really a matter for that country alone—'
Here I intervened, saying "No." The Prime Minister replied:
I think it is.
I then said:
It affects another country.
The Prime Minister said:
I know, but the hon. Member was given certain names at his baptism and it would be

quite improper for me to call him out of his name."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th May, 1949; Vol. 464, c. 1861–2.]
All I can say is that the name that Eire adopted on her baptism, if we go back to the new Constitution of 1937, was the word "Eire," and, had it been possible for me to be here last night, I should have moved an Amendment to the effect that the title should be not "Republic of Ireland" but "Republic of Eire." I should have done so on the very solid grounds that, when the constitution of 1937 was recognised and ratified, we inserted in the law of May, 1938, the word "Eire," which was fully accepted by Southern Ireland, and it was then stated that the word "Eire" was the word which included the territory which had formerly been known as the Irish Free State.
I therefore cannot understand why the Government should insist upon this title "Republic of Ireland," because this title of Eire has for many years been associated with the Government of Southern Ireland. Further, I think that in the past the term "Republic of Ireland" has been shown to be very dangerous. Mr. de Valera, in accordance with the first clause of the Constitution of 1937, claimed that that title included the whole of the islands and territories of Ireland, and it was on that ground—and here is the danger which may arise again—that Mr. de Valera intervened and protested against the landing of American troops in Northern Ireland. He protested here at the Dominions Office in London, and also through Mr. Brennan, the Eire Minister in Washington. I foresee a similar danger arising in future by the use of the term "Republic of Ireland." The Minister for External Affairs in Dublin had stated most emphatically that, when the Republic of Ireland is admitted to the society of nations——

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: On a point of Order. May I ask for your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker? Is not the hon. Gentleman addressing himself to what is purely a Committee point in what he is now saying, and is it not a point which has no connection whatever with the Third Reading of this Bill?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am afraid I cannot agree with the hon. Member. The hon. Member for Queen's University of Belfast (Professor Savory) is addressing


himself, if he will forgive me for saying so, at far too great a length, to his objection to the term "Republic of Ireland." That term is in the Bill, and he can, of course, object to it if he wishes, but perhaps he need not do so with so many apt historical and other references.

Professor Savory: I accept your very kind suggestion, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I have no intention of detaining the House at any great length, but this is an important point, and I think that the point of Order raised by the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeffington-Lodge) was a very frivolous one. I listened with great patience during the whole of the Second Reading Debate and heard the hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. J. Beattie) speak for 48 minutes without any interruption, and I think that I might be allowed to develop my subject without frivolous points of Order being raised. What we are discussing is the whole title of the Bill, and I was giving my reason for preferring the title "Republic of Eire" to the present title. After all, the word "Eire" is associated with the country throughout the world. The word appears on every postage stamp. Therefore, if they adopt it on their stamps, why cannot they adopt it in connection with their Republic and call it "The Republic of Eire"? That is the first point I desire to make.
Subsection (1, b) has been attacked on several grounds, but the strongest argument that weighs with me is the fact that the existence of the Six Counties of Northern Ireland has been recognised no less than three times in the most solemn way and accepted by Southern Ireland; first of all, in——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Again, I do not think we need go into all the history of which the hon. Gentleman wishes to remind us. The Bill makes certain provisions; the hon. Gentleman is entitled to accept or reject them, but he is not entitled to go into details of past history to which, apparently, he desires to refer.

Professor Savory: I am not going into history, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and I am sure you will allow me to make just the one point that this State of Northern Ireland was definitely, absolutely and voluntarily accepted by the Irish Free State in 1925, and that, therefore, I consider it a

breach of faith to go back on that extremely solemn agreement which has not yet been in existence for even a quarter of a century. That agreement ratified the existence of the Six Counties and the existing boundary was accepted freely and voluntarily.
We have heard a good deal about compulsion and threats. But this was done on the initiative of the Free State itself, and accepted of their own free will by overwhelming majorities in both Houses of the Southern Parliament, in the Lower House by a majority of 55 to 14. How can we go back on that solemn agreement? How can we now throw that voluntary agreement into the melting pot and say that we refuse to accept subsection (1, b) which does nothing more than ratify that agreement? I welcome the subsection because it puts into writing what the Prime Minister promised to us verbally, first of all, in reply to a Question by my right hon. Friend the senior Member for Antrim (Sir H. O'Neill), and then, later, in a reply to a Question put by myself. He twice insisted that this guarantee was accepted by the Government. Therefore, all that this subsection does is to put into writing the promise officially and solemnly made here to Northern Ireland.
Like many speakers here, I do not attach very great importance to that guarantee. We all know that this guarantee given by one Parliament can be overthrown by another. If we go back and consider guarantees, what could have been more solemn than the article in the Act of Union which guaranteed as essential and permanent the maintenance of the Irish Church? That article was said to be essential and permanent. That has gone, and we know perfectly well that Her Majesty strongly objected because it was guaranteed by a Coronation Oath. The words formed part of her Coronation Oath. I am not speaking in favour of it one way or the other. I am only referring to this historical question to show that there is no such thing as a legal guarantee, because one Parliament cannot hind another.
We have no written Constitution like that of the United States where they can appeal to the Supreme Court against any law they consider unconstitutional, or anything of that kind. Parliament is supreme, and this guarantee or moral


satisfaction can be swept away by a subsequent Parliament. At any rate, while we are giving all these immense privileges under the Bill to Southern Ireland, surely the least we can do is to give this moral satisfaction to the country which is stopping with us and which desires to remain as part of the United Kingdom and part of the British Commonwealth of Nations.
Do we realise what we are giving to Eire under this Bill? Any citizen of Eire who resides in the United Kingdom—this is a Clause in the Bill—on 31st October can be at once put on the Spring register, or if he resides for one night here on 30th April, can be immediately put on the Autumn register. You are giving them an immense concession. If you are willing to take the risk, that is your affair. All I can say is that we have acted with extraordinary generosity. [An HON. MEMBER: "We always do."] We always have so far as Eire is concerned. All I ask is that we should show this same generosity in accepting this guarantee which you are giving to Northern Ireland. We have heard a great deal tonight, especially from the hon. Member for West Belfact, about the evil of this Clause because he says that it breaks up a certain country—it breaks up Ireland; but was Ireland ever united?

Mr. J. Beattie: Yes.

Professor Savory: No, never, except during those years, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Antrim told us in his able speech on Second Reading, between 1800 and 1920 when she formed a part of the United Kingdom. It has been said that this Clause is wrong because it breaks up an island, that Ireland is one whole. The island of San Domingo——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The island of San Domingo is a little remote from this Bill.

Professor Savory: That consists of two independent republics, one of French origin and the other of Spanish. Why must we insist that because a country is an island it must have exactly the same government? We tried the experiment after the Battle of Waterloo of forcing Belgium and Holland into one country. History was against us—three hundred years of history were against us—and the

union broke down in 1830 after only 15 years. We had to recognise two independent countries—the independent country of Belgium and that of Holland. There is exactly the same difference between these two nations of Northern and Southern Ireland as there was between Belgium and Holland.
Again, in our own time we have seen Norway break away from Sweden. Scandinavia might be said to be one in every way—in race, language, speaking broadly, and religion—far more than Ireland, yet Norway has separated from Sweden, with the happiest and best of results. Britain herself has at last been forced to adopt the unanimous recommendation made years ago in the Samuel Report; Britain has had to recognise the partition of Palestine, and seen at last that it is impossible for Jews and Arabs to live together under one State. That was pointed out years and years ago, and at last by bitter experience Britain has been forced to accept that result. Is there any greater difference between Arab Palestine and Jewish Palestine than between Northern and Southern Ireland? The difference is essentially the same. Then again, for how long did Britain protest against the partition of India? She has now been forced to recognise that there is an essential difference between Pakistan and India, even though Pakistan consists of only one-twentieth of India.

Mr. Speaker: We are now debating the Third Reading of the Ireland Bill, not an India Bill.

Professor Savory: My only purpose in referring to India was to point out that the question of the partition of Ireland, which is reaffirmed by Clause 1, has precedents in our own time, which we have been compelled to accept. We have therefore been compelled now, under this Bill, once and for all, to accept in the division of Ireland——

Mr. Speaker: That would have been a very good argument on Second Reading, but it is not quite so good on Third Reading.

Professor Savory: I am very sorry that I was not able to catch your eye on Second Reading in order to make these remarks then. I shall, of course, obey your Ruling. All I wish to insist upon is the absolute necessity for this division, which has become more necessary today


since Eire has set itself up as an independent Republic. How can we expect Northern Ireland, which wants to belong to Britain, which has never deserted her but always stood at her side, to allow itself to be forced, or how can Britain for one moment bring herself to force Northern Ireland outside the United Kingdom, outside the Commonwealth of Nations, in order to become part and parcel of an independent Republic? It is unthinkable. Therefore, the Prime Minister, backed up by a very marvellous speech from the Lord President, has adopted this necessary solution, which is surely quite unavoidable.
However much we in Northern Ireland do our best to live on good terms with Southern Ireland, yet, as our Prime Minister put it so well, we are not in a position to share the same flat, although we can live as friends, side by side, in two separate houses, with a very pleasant garden between us, and we can exchange very amiable conversations over the garden wall. So far as I know, nothing provocative has been said by Northern Ireland during this Debate or during the whole of the General Election which took place last February. I think that one of the most notable Southern Irishmen has expressed the case for Clause 1 (1, b) far better than I could do. John Horgan of Cork, the life-long friend of Parnell, the man who has written that very interesting book "From Parnell to Pearce," the man who was the intimate friend of John Redmond, and who himself is a life-long nationalist, writing in "The Tablet"—surely a paper which will not be suspected in any way whatsoever by any hon. Gentleman opposite—said:
Partition is a domestic problem which has its roots in fundamental religious, social and historic differences which have existed for hundreds of years, and in which loyalty to the British Crown is the major test applied … It was not the much-abused Act of 1920, but the Treaty of 1921, negotiated by the Sinn Fein leaders themselves, which divided the country into two absolutely separate units, but it was the subsequent agreement of 1925, freely ratified by the Parliaments of Great Britain, the Irish Free State and Northern Ireland, which finally fixed the boundary between them.
Here is an ardent Nationalist, a man whose whole life has been devoted to Ireland as a nation, writing these words only a week or two ago in "The Tablet."

If I were to try my very best I could not improve on this very exact, true and perfect language. Those are the reasons for inserting Clause 1 (1, b) in the Bill.
We would welcome unity, but it must be unity within the Commonwealth of Nations. We would welcome Eire if she came back and joined us in order to become part of the United Kingdom. That is the only way to bring about the unity between the two countries, but so long as this independent Republic exists, so long as the Union Jack is burned, as it was the other day in front of Trinity College, in the streets of Dublin, we cannot join that Republic. It is absolutely out of the question. In fact, this bulwark of the boundary, to which so much attention has been paid, is the one barrier which protects everything for which we live. Our whole interest, our whole affection and our whole desire is to remain part and parcel of the United Kingdom and the British Commonwealth of Nations, and not to be hurled against our will into a Republic which has thrown off the allegiance of the Crown.

9.32 p.m.

Mr. McGovern: I, like many other hon. Members in this House tonight, wish to associate myself with the expression we have had from the Opposition and from the Government that the Government of this country in introducing this Bill, apart from the disputed Clause, were doing a generous act towards Irishmen here and to the people of Ireland. I agree that it was not their fault that precipitated the necessity for the Act, and if there is one thing about which I have been depressed more than anything else—and I have expressed it repeatedly in Ireland—is that Mr. Costello should have chosen the moment he did to declare a Republic of Ireland.
In my travels throughout the world I spent some time in Australia. I was in every town in Australia, and I have often thought that what was good enough for West and South Australia, for Victoria, for New South Wales and for Queensland—Queensland with its teeming population of Irishmen—could be equally good for the people of Ireland. I wish they had remained within the Commonwealth, because I believe there was gradually growing up in Northern and Southern Ireland a desire to come together in some friendly association.
One of the things of which I am more afraid than anything else in the state of the world today is that by paragraph (b), which I have opposed, we might give excuse for a section in Southern Ireland who are anxious to re-form a forceful movement in that country. I see it as a danger.
I was present at a meeting in Dublin six or seven weeks ago when the hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. J. Beattie) was addressing it, with several other speakers. It was an anti-partition meeting. Apart from the arguments used, there was a speech by one speaker who was anxious to impress the audience with his desire to do something of a forceful character now against Northern Ireland. The audience which packed the Mansion House gave very little support indeed to what he said. He was rather annoyed. One could see that from his position on the platform and his approach to the subject. He repeated the phrase time and time again that he was tired of talk and wanted action. Throughout the hall there was no applause from that vast audience. His speech may have brought to their minds recollections of the civil war which was such a bloody struggle.

Mr. Beattie: I think the hon. Member will agree that I said at that Mansion House meeting what I have said here this evening, that force was no solution of any question.

Mr. McGovern: I shall say again what I did say, that all the speakers except one spoke in that vein, and the one exception was very poorly received by the audience. A very responsible man in an early Eire Government was talking to the late James Maxton and myself in his room for a matter of two or three hours on the position in Ireland. He said, and I believe it to be absolutely true: "You know, the people of Ireland are finding it very difficult to settle down. We have a large section of young men and young women in this country who, even if they could get what they want by constitutional means, do not want it that way. They must die for it."
I think that that is inherently true of the Irish nation and of a large section of its younger people. Unless they can win by forceful means what they are out to achieve they reject it for the sake of

using force. I have warned responsible people in Ireland, in this country, and elsewhere in the world to discourage any talk of force at the present moment. Any forceful movement that develops in Ireland will act as an under-cover movement for a gangster set who will be out to destroy the fundamentals of democratic life throughout the world. In Ireland, there is that section.
I have always deplored the hatred which has been in evidence between the North and the South. It is fundamental that we cannot hate strongly and build well. People who hate cannot construct because they concentrate every fibre of their being and mentally and physically pour everything into the struggle of hatred, and they cannot therefore throw their wills, their minds and their constructive powers into the creation of something which is worth while. I have had great experience in the political and religious movement. I have had my struggles from the early Socialist days. During the Spanish Civil War when I took my stand against the bestiality of General Franco, I had to fight against people in the Church. I have never retreated from the position which I took up then. I have never apologised for always fighting for my right to think and act as I felt in my own heart and mind. I have never objected to a spiritual reprimand in the field of religion, but in the field of politics, I am prepared to use my own mind and to fight for my right to carry through my ideas to the bitter end no matter what the cost.
In Northern and Southern Ireland there has been too much living in the past. What is the only hope for Southern and Northern Ireland? I want to say this to Northern Ireland hon. Members. I have never stood for any attempt to force Northern Ireland into a union. I could go back in history and show that the minority in Ireland tried to coerce the majority in the very early stages; from that has come a tremendous amount of our troubles. A section in Ireland thinks Clause 1 (1, b) is wrong, but they may not establish any more. I am prepared to say that. It has already been stated by the Prime Minister. In that situation, the Bill goes through and is placed on the Statute Book. To me 95 per cent. of it is good and worth while. This country can be generous and tolerant.
I do not think Englishmen are half as bad as they are said to be. As a result of my association with them, even as a Scotsman I would not exchange my birthright in this country, including England, for anything else in the world. It is one of the greatest countries in the whole universe with its spirit of toleration, its compromising spirit in politics and its adjustments to changed conditions. In spite of all that, I still urge Irishmen to try to evolve a real basis of spirit and religion and of toleration for one another, allowing each other to have private views, and to try, too, in the political and economic field and in the field of developing the arts and talents to co-operate in the interests of the people of the world and of lasting peace.
We want Eire and Northern Ireland within the unity of the Western World. We want them because they are of us, in spite of all that has been said, and in the struggles which are developing today we need them to pull their weight and apply their strength. I hope that, in spite of the political circumstances which have taken Ireland out of the British Commonwealth, they may yet see their way with the evolution of time to re-enter this community of nations and rejoin us as a Dominion with a right to rule their own affairs. I hope that the people of Northern and Southern Ireland and every responsible person in that country and in this country will work for the unity of that nation and the unity of the world as a whole.

9.45 p.m.

Mr. Gage: With every word of the sincere speech that has just been made I and, I think, every hon. Member of this House will agree. Certainly for myself I have no wish at this late stage of the Bill to enter into anything controversial. Not even the hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. J. Beattie) for once will draw me into controversy, though I venture to commend to his attention a passage in a sensible and responsible leading article that appeared in the "Irish Times" on 11th May which every Irishman should read. It is true that these words were applied by the writer to Mr. Costello, but I feel certain that had he known of the vehement championship of the hon. Member for West Belfast, he would have applied them equally to him. What the writer said was this:

In a recent speech the Taoiseach declared that Ireland had made a great deal of noise in the world and proposed to make even more noise. In our opinion and, as we believe, in that of hundreds of thousands of reasonable Irishmen, there has been far too much noise already, and not nearly enough common-sense.
That was in one of the leading journals in the South, a wise and sensible paper.
I want to turn for a moment to the really tragic occasion which this Bill signalises, the departure of Eire from the Commonwealth. I think there are many Irishmen, not only in this country but in Southern Ireland, who are themselves deploring that. No one reading the Irish Press and following Irish events recently could doubt that there are hundreds and thousands of Irishmen in Ireland, as indeed, the "Irish Times" says, who are deploring the departure from the old association, often violent, often turbulent, but with always underlying it a vein of affection and certainly a vein of amusement.
Singularly inappropriate is the occasion—when countries are drawing together and when it has been said with the approbation of both sides that the time is coming when nations will have to surrender some portion of their sovereignty—that Ireland has chosen to go out on its own path. The trouble with Irish politicians, as has often been said, is that they cannot forget the past; they are so busy looking over their shoulders that they do not see the difficulties ahead. It is really paradoxical to an Irishman that a country with so many kings to the acre should choose to be a Republic.
It is fairly simple to an Irishman to understand the peculiar accident—because it almost is an accident—of how it came about. Hon. Members will remember that when Mr. Costello came to power after 17 years in Opposition, he did so upon the votes of Irishmen, and there were many of them, who looked forward to an era of friendship with this country. I read nearly all of the Irish papers in the election as well as Mr. Costello's election address and those of many of his supporters, and every one stressed the importance of drawing closer to Britain. I, for one, believed that the old bitterness which my generation had known was dying away.
I believe that Mr. Costello came to power on that plank in his platform. But then, after he got into power that able and sincere man—because he has


always been quite sincere in his views—Mr. de Valera sought to retrieve his fallen fortunes by what we know as the partition issue. At that time partition as an issue in Southern Ireland was completely dead. Nobody really took any interest in it, but he revived it. Of course it was an astute political move and it became necessary for Mr. Costello to counter it. He thought he could do so by repealing the External Relations Act.
I do not know this, but I know Irishmen and I know the way they think, and I should not be surprised in the least if Mr. Costello and Mr. McBride never thought that they would have to implement that and become a Republic. If you treat a country as spoilt children they are apt to become spoilt children. They may well have thought that if they said they were going to repeal the External Relations Act, it would not happen again as it had happened so many times in the past; that they would be called to a conference and told, "Do not do this dreadful thing; if you do not do it we will give you within reason what you want." I think that that was the way their minds were working.
But unfortunately for them, this Government—and it does the Government credit—did not yield in that way. So they found themselves with a Republic which I do not believe they wanted and which I do not believe many of their followers wanted. Therefore, when I read in the Press last week that Mr. Costello had charged the Prime Minister with stupidity, political cowardice and trying to snatch an advantage in the forthcoming General Election, although I am no supporter of the Prime Minister, I could not help feeling that those words might more appropriately have been applied to Mr. Costello himself.
By doing that they perpetuated, at any rate for many generations, the Border that they are so anxious to get rid of. But worse than that, they have inflamed the country—I think there is little doubt of that. Ireland is a country that is very easy to inflame. It is, perhaps, one of the few countries in which one can very quickly work up a passionate zeal for abstract constitutional issues. An Irishman will forget all the economic matters—his bread and butter—if you can wave a good robust constitutional issue in front of him. He will grab his gun or

whatever he has got and without thinking he will set out on a crusade. That is a dangerous thing to do. Many Irish politicians have done it, and the trouble is that many of them have not lived to regret it. Nearly always, as I think Mr. Costello himself must be thinking, the thing comes back. Whoever gets advantage out of it, it is very rarely the Irishman who started it.
I hope I have not spoken with any bitterness. If I have, I would only say in extenuation that it is difficult for a person who lived through the Rebellion of 1916, who saw the burnings and the murders, who lived in the trouble, entirely to eradicate the feeling of bitterness. It is difficult for us all to do it. I tried to do so, and if I have said anything with any bitterness I should like the House to think that that bitterness is reserved for those people—the politicians—who have brought ruin to my country.
I should be less than human if I did not feel in my heart anything but affection for that lovely land; for the people amongst whom in my youth I spent so many happy days. That is the feeling, I think, that we in Ulster have for our cousins across the Border. It is true that at times we have seen the beautiful landscape dimly through a mist of blood, but we like to forget those days; we like to forget the bitterness that we once felt. If the people in the South have made their decision and have decided to take the road—the lonely road—that leads from the Commonwealth, I hope that we in Ulster will wish them God-speed, even though we shall never travel that road with them.

9.55 p.m.

Mr. Neil Maclean: I think you, Mr. Speaker, and the noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) are the only Members who sat in this House when this phase of the Irish troubles began. The one thing that strikes me while this Bill is going through the House, is that the Labour Government, formed out of the Labour Party, should be taking an entirely different attitude towards Ireland now from that which was taken by the Labour Party in the House of Commons in 1918. That is what vexes me. I am not against the Irish in the South or the Irish in the North. I would


like to see them coming together. It was a mistake that they were divided. I believe they could have had a better united Government had they not accepted what was done, in order to stop the fighting in those days.
The Labour Party were not a Government but an Opposition of between 40 and 50 hon. Members, and they did their best to try to bring about satisfaction and peace between the two parties in Ireland. They endeavoured to get the Government to treat the matter in a manner which would be humane, but the Government at that time went beyond itself and there were burnings and murderings all over Ireland by the troops sent there after the conclusion of the 1914–18 war. The Labour Party endeavoured time and time again, to bring about some method whereby peace could be established and the two parties be brought together and Parliamentary measures taken for a satisfactory settlement between the two sections. The Government of today have taken up an entirely opposite attitude to that taken up by the party at that time.

Mr. John E. Haire: I hesitate to interrupt my hon. Friend but in that Debate, Arthur Henderson said:
I must say here in the name of the British Labour Party that we have not lost our faith in the principles of self-government or the principles of self-determination."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd December, 1919; Vol. 123, c. 1210.]
I wonder whether if he were here today, he would deny that same right to Northern Ireland?

Mr. Maclean: Northern Ireland is not a nation; it is only a part of a nation——

Mr. Beattie: It is only a splinter unit.

Mr. Maclean: —and the self-determination of nations was the principle of which Arthur Henderson was speaking when he used those words. I will quote a resolution passed by the Labour Party in those days. It may be past history, but it is at least worth remembering. A Motion was put on the Order Paper by the Labour Party regretting that, in view of the deplorable conditions of force in Ireland, there was no expressed intention on the part of the Government to make a real effort towards reconciliation and settlement by meeting in conference the elected representatives of the Irish people—that is, the North and the South—and

exploring the position by means of every possible avenue. There was a delegation sent to Ireland for the purpose of making inquiries into the allegations that were being made. I was asked by Mr. Arthur Henderson to go on that delegation. I declined, and when he asked why, I told him that I had been taking such an active part in Parliament on the Irish question that any report signed by me would be looked upon as a prejudiced report; and he agreed.
When that report was brought back to this country it was submitted to a special conference of the Labour Party at a hall in London. The report was accepted by that party, and resolutions were passed outlining the attitude which the delegates thought that the Labour Party ought to adopt. The Cabinet of today has gone in direct opposition to the decisions of Labour in those far-off days. I want this to be borne in mind, that those resolutions have never been rescinded at any succeeding Labour Party Conference. I wish to raise my voice in support of any attempt to bring about peace in Ireland. I will not join in the provocation which is given in some parts, not only of the country but of this House, but I will raise my voice in an endeavour to get peace between all sections in Ireland so that it will become a happy country once again. I hope that the Cabinet will bear it in mind.
I voted against the Bill when it first came before the House. I will vote against it tonight if the House is divided. The feelings that I had in those days 30 years ago, with regard to the Irish question are still with me. I believe that the Irish question can be solved without fighting, without any attempt at physical force, but by getting the parties together in a manner that would enable them to talk peacefully about that which will be likely to benefit the whole of the Irish nation. That has never yet been attempted by any Government which has been in power in this country.
I hope, therefore, that something will be done to soften any ill feelings and bad temper that have grown out of the difficulty; that something will be done—not this Bill—which will bring about peace in Ireland. This Bill will not bring about peace in Ireland. I hope that something will be done in the interregnum, between the passing of this Bill and any dispute


and trouble arising, to work out a plan that will enable North and South to come together. I hope they may come together not only as friends but also as nationalists, desirous of seeing Ireland not a split nation but "a nation once again," which can take its place among the nations of the world. So far as the British race is concerned Ireland can take its place with Great Britain in helping to raise our Colonies and other far-flung dependencies to a position which will make Great Britain the greatest power for peace in the world.

10.6 p.m.

Major Sir David Maxwell Fyfe: Great though my respect is for the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. N. Maclean), with his long experience of this House and of public life, I should most respectfully say to him that I disagree, and I feel that the general spirit of the House is in disagreement, with stirring up over a period of a generation of 25 or 30 years these battles, troubles and disagreements of the past. My study of history teaches me this, if nothing else. It is inevitably a game that two can play at and neither of the parties to the game are ever benefited by so playing.
I should like to pick up the general spirit which has animated the House tonight, which was redolent in the speech of the hon. Member for Platting (Mr. Delargy) when he urged us to use any influence we had towards calm, discretion and moderation. I feel that amidst the strong feelings which hon. Members have expressed from one side and another, that spirit which he tried to evoke has not failed to find resting places in their minds. I therefore start, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) started, by saying that there is a general feeling of melancholy that the situation should have arisen.
I wish to say in answer to the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), who asked why there should be sadness at a State having obtained complete nationhood, that our sadness in that regard is for the reason that we believe strongly and firmly that complete nationhood can be obtained within the Commonwealth as it exists today. Equally, from the other aspect, we feel the sadness expressed by my hon. Friend the

Member for Moseley (Sir P. Hannon) when he gave us the picture which he is well qualified to draw of Ireland as a great mother of overseas development now separated from so many of her sons. Therefore, I do not think that that sadness and melancholy is something which we should at all regret being present in our minds.
In these circumstances, it is generally admitted—I do not think that on this part of the Bill any speaker has said anything to the contrary—that it is no unworthy gesture on the part of this country that we have meted out and displayed to the citizens of Eire the treatment which is proposed in this Bill. I hope this will be the only word of repetition in which I shall indulge, but I do think it is worth saying again that, at a time in the development of our Commonwealth when there are many difficult problems arising, for this country to have said "We will not trouble about the repercussions of these problems; we shall, although you have left us, treat your citizens as if you had not," is something which will be remembered amongst the generous gestures in the history of the world.
Like so many speakers, I want at this stage to deal with this matter as briefly as I possibly can, and I try to look at the point as objectively as it is given to any of us to do. I come to the question whether, in these circumstances, it was necessary to have the Clause about Ulster in the Bill, because that is the point on which there is difference, and because the point of view of those who think it was necessary should be considered.
No one can deny that a great change is being faced—the departure of what is now the Republic from the Commonwealth. After a series of agreements and changes in relationship over a period of years, when this further change took place, if there had not been a clear declaration as to the position which then ensued, I can imagine endless opportunities for trouble, debate and discord arising. It is not a matter which we can afford to leave in doubt. Everyone must know exactly what is the position that is left. Again, looking at it from the commonsense point of view, it has never, believe me, been a policy that paid to attempt to placate one's critics by hurting or being unfair to one's supporters. Those are the three points that I see.
I have been most struck by the speech of the hon. Member for Platting and by the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for South Belfast (Mr. Gage). They have both enough imagination to see the new trend which I hope I see in the movement of thought in the world. Up to a few years ago, it has been thought that independence required to be accompanied by a separation or by a division from other people. I believe that the inexorable development of history and total war is beginning to teach people that separation is not the inevitable concomitant of freedom, and that we must be prepared to reconsider once again whether a centripetal instead of a centrifugal approach is not going to work for the greater happiness of mankind.
Therefore, when we talk, as we have talked with sincerity about the hope of agreement coming between North and South Ireland, the background to that hope in Ireland is, as my right hon. Friend said, that the part which is now a Republic may realise that it is not necessary for all time to remain parted from us, and, in that way, that we may get a basis on which agreement can be reached. But that is the only thing that we can contemplate, agreement coming, as we hope it may, by the path I have indicated. We cannot for a moment contemplate turning out against their will our fellow citizens at this time.
I have certainly tried, and I hope I have succeeded, to speak without rancour and without any party approach to the matter I am discussing. I feel that we have made a great effort to meet the new situation, and I assure those who feel strongly on the matter that it will not be any conduct or feeling of ours which will add to the difficulty or rancour at the present time. It is in that spirit that I ask, on behalf of those who sit with me on this side, that the House will give the Bill a Third Reading and pass it tonight.

10.17 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): The Debate we have heard in this House this evening has shown a sincerity of feeling and a desire to say nothing that shall make the path of anyone difficult in the future which do credit to every hon. Member who has been present in this debating Chamber. We have heard

speeches of great eloquence and of simple sincerity of feeling from both sides of the House, and there has been a genuine effort on both sides to say nothing that will make the working of these Islands in the future more difficult than the circumstances of our time inevitably ensure that it will be.
If I may, I should like particularly to allude to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) which seemed to me to be a speech of great statesmanship. He told us the other night that he had an Irish father and a Scottish mother; apparently he has been able to appreciate from that inheritance the way in which the English mind works. He said that the English had occupied both his countries. May I say that as an Englishman I have sometimes felt that both the races from which he comes had pretty effectively occupied my country. But tonight he said one thing which I hope will live in the memory of everyone who heard it because I believe it is the best guide to the way out of the impasse which has existed in Irish affairs for far too many hundred years. He said that we cannot hate and build constructively. I believe that one reason why the English have modestly done a little in the world is the fact that they are such poor haters that they cannot keep their hatred up for very long. That has been, I think, the key-note of the discussion we have had.
The hon. Member for South Belfast (Mr. Gage) also made a remark which, I think, was exceedingly helpful. In speaking of the people in the other part of Ireland, he alluded to them as cousins across the Border. So far as I know, on neither side of the Border is there any bar to marriage on the grounds of consanguinity between cousins. I hope that if we can support the approach on the basis of cousinship it may be even more helpful than on the basis of brotherhood or sisterhood. Let us try to recognise the facts of the situation and move as steadily as we can, not advancing into the future backwards but trying to go into the future looking forward, to the better things that we can achieve if we will occasionally forget some of the things that have made our life in the past difficult.
My hon. Friend the Member for Platting (Mr. Delargy) asked me one direct question, and I think that as the question


has been asked quite plainly and fairly it should be as fairly and emphatically answered. He asked me if before Mr. Costello spoke there had been any documents passing between the two countries of Eire and the United Kingdom indicating that any pronouncement was going to be made. I am authorised by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations to say this: There were no documents; there were no conversations. My right hon. Friend was in Dublin on the day the report of Mr. Costello's speech came through, and it came as a complete surprise to him. The question was asked and I have endeavoured to answer it plainly and, I hope, without any show of resentment. It was a question of fact and I have tried to answer on the basis of fact and nothing else.
It is a heavy and responsible task to make the last remarks on behalf of His Majesty's Government in a Debate of this character. I want to express my thanks to all the Members of the House who have participated in the discussion for the way in which they have made the task of myself, and, I imagine, of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, comparatively easy in these difficult circumstances. This is a very great and generous act towards Ireland. I do not believe that at any previous time in the history of the world a great nation, for we are still a great nation, probably greater in some way than ever we have been before, has been able to see an action like that which precipitated this Bill and has been able to take the line that we have taken. We have said: "Well, we are sorry that you have gone. We ourselves do not believe that you are more completely a nation today than you were before 18th April; we do not believe that you are more a nation today than Canada, or Australia, or New Zealand, or South Africa, or India, or Pakistan, or Ceylon."

Mr. Ungoed-Thomas: Or the United Kingdom.

Mr. Ede: Well, I am an Englishman, and a modest one, and I was trying to keep that out. It could only be a Welshman, a member of a Principality, who reminded me of it.
We have taken that line. But we have said more than that. We have said:

"You have desired to cut the last thread, but we do not bolt any door. You can come into this country on the same basis as you did before you went out." I say that that is completely unprecedented. It is an indication of the greatness of this nation that it can make such a gesture instead of saying and doing things which make life in the future more difficult. I sincerely hope that in a little time, when some of the words that have recently been uttered have been forgotten, or at least when perhaps the hollowness of some of them has been discovered, it will be possible for those who have received these benefits to recognise how great they have been.
I am bound to say that I do not think we could have left this matter without saying something about those people in the sister island who desire to remain a part of the United Kingdom. There again we have bolted no doors; we have shut no doors; in fact, there has been a general expression tonight from both sides of the House that, in spite of all that has been said and all that has happened, the way to union and unity may be found. Let this be said, too, that if at any time the Republic of Ireland desires to re-enter the Commonwealth she will find that the door is open, that there will be a warm welcome, and that no questions about the past and the recent events will be asked.
This is a problem that has baffled the statesmen of this country for over 700 years. Many people have found in it the graves of their reputations. We desire that nothing shall be said tonight in this Debate, and that no action shall be taken, which will make anyone regret that he has participated in the Debate or has taken part in the action that must follow on the Debate. We earnestly hope that Irishmen on both sides of the Border will realise the attitude that the United Kingdom has adopted on this issue, and we pray that as the realisation of what we have done comes home to them, they will find that this country and this Commonwealth is wide enough and wise enough, and generous enough, to welcome into its companionship all those who share, as these two nations do share, a belief in the democratic way of life and in the Christian basis of society.

TREE-PLANTING

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Hannan.]

10.30 p.m.

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: I want to raise tonight a subject which has received all too little attention both in this House and in the country during the recent past. I refer to the subject of the planting of trees, and to their use both as an amenity on the landscape and as an asset both in agriculture and in industry. The factor about which I shall have most to say is tree-planting as an important part of good planning, rather than about forestry as such. That explains why my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Town and Country Planning, whom I do not yet see here, is, as I hope, going to reply to the Debate tonight rather than his opposite number in the Ministry of Agriculture.
Let me say before going any further that I deplore the division of functions which seems to exist between the Minister of Town and Country Planning and the Minister of Agriculture in connection with all matters affecting trees. I think it would be far more suitable if these problems were placed under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Agriculture rather than that they should have anything to do with the Minister of Town and Country Planning. At the present time the Minister of Town and Country Planning has quite a big say in regard to the amenity aspect of tree planting through the planning committees which have been set up by various local authorities. But it is my contention that the Ministry of Agriculture, being in closer touch with farmers and landowners, would normally be in a better position to give advice and guidance in respect even of the amenity side of tree planting. It is a shocking thing that in many parts of our country there are large areas practically denuded of trees. In those parts particularly, people seem to have purchased farms with very little knowledge of farming and to have indulged in practices which are responsible for this sad state of affairs. Having paid high prices for these farms they have in many cases tried to recoup themselves by having the trees on them felled quite wantonly, and without regard to the national interest. So serious have the results of

this policy become that, as I have said, many parts are without trees at all where they once existed. In fact, it would be no great exaggeration to say that some of these areas appear to-day as if an atom bomb had struck them.
In a recent census of woodlands in the country it was revealed that the proportion of felled, devastated and scrub woodland was as high as 60 per cent. in some counties. In addition, the policy of cutting sapling trees in the hedges of the country, besides removing a potential reservoir of hardwood trees, is making the country dull and stereotyped. Plain, precise and shaven hedges everywhere will eventually make the landscape dull and ugly, besides removing a shelter for birds, many of which are a great advantage to our farmers.
In the first war, nearly all the timber requirements of Great Britain had to be cut from a meagre 3 million acres of woodland, and our forests at that time covered only 5 per cent. of the total land area of the country, compared with 26 per cent. under trees in Germany, 56 per cent. in Sweden, and 8 per cent. even in a country like Holland. A very dangerous drain has been imposed on that sorry position since then and, I would add, lamentably little has been done about it. The fact is that our country is felling too much timber. This, I suggest, should stir everyone's conscience to demand that appropriate action should be taken about it. Some local authorities, I admit, and some private organisations, are doing splendid work. I am particularly proud of the Bedfordshire County Council and its efforts.
In a report by the Agricultural Smallholdings and Allotments Committee of that Council, dated 25th February, 1949, the following paragraph appears:
The present public interest in re-afforestation and silviculture because of serious losses, and dereliction from tree diseases, together with the need for general replenishment, for utility and amenity, has convinced your Committee of the need for a County Forester (Advisory), and they feel that the services of the County Land Agent should be made available for this special work.
The Bedfordshire County Council unanimously accepted this suggestion and quite remarkable results have been achieved. There is a growing realisation in the county that every farm and field has a


potential tree value. A little sensible co-operation between farmers, landowners and county forestry advisers can work wonders in restoring and maintaining local beauty, as well as in helping the whole nation. One of the happiest things which the Bedfordshire County Council decided on was to plant trees on selected highways as a constant recognition of rejoicing—and they put it in that way—at the birth of Prince Charles. The usefulness of shelter belts and small spinneys as a means of enhancing the attractiveness of the landscape has also been recognised in Bedfordshire.
"Truth" is not a periodical with whose views I normally associate myself, but in that publication there recently appeared a paragraph with which I am in most hearty agreement. This is it:
Desiccation of the climate and the erosion of the soil are among the penalties which a nation has to pay when it allows its land to become denuded of trees. Warning examples abound not only in past history but also in contemporary developments in many parts of the world. Scattered trees well distributed over the countryside do even more than compact forests to avert the danger. Bedfordshire County Council is showing good sense and foresight which other public bodies might profitably imitate.
I wish my hon. Friend who is going to reply tonight would circularise every local authority in the country commending Bedfordshire's example to them, and underlining the powers that all local authorities possess but do not often use to make tree preservation orders under the Town and Country Planning Act. Those orders can be made, I understand, if it appears that it is in the interests of amenity to do so.
Emphasis should, of course, be placed not only on conservation but on planting, too. Here I should like just to mention the work of a small voluntary society in the county of Devon, called the Sid Valley Tree Society. It states its objects to be
the planting in the district of Sidmouth of trees, cedars and hardwood trees to preserve and increase the beauty of our valley.
In less than two years its members have planted upwards of 200 trees. There has been the utmost local co-operation. Public interest is immense, and I believe what is being done there could be repeated in thousands of other places throughout the country at no cost to the Government. I should like my hon. Friend to give such

projects his blessing. He might perhaps look into the particular scheme I name to see if it is not a model he could generally commend to others to follow.
Through careful foresight and through the use of commonsense, pleas for beauty and utility could be combined in a concerted campaign to make our whole country tree-minded. Trees properly placed and appropriate to their surroundings can be an inspiration to good living. Bad planning, on the other hand, leads to the sorry activities of an army of ignorant tree loppers, as is frequently to be seen in London. Their services would often never be needed if the trees in London had been put in the right places to start with. I believe that the public conscience in the country is awakening on this subject. Where it is still asleep I feel my hon. Friend can do a good deal tonight to arouse it.

10.44 p.m.

Colonel Ropner: I will only detain the House for a very few minutes. I want to congratulate the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeffington-Lodge) upon raising this matter at all, but he has to some extent confused amenity and economy. I agree with all his remarks with regard to local authorities making their highways and towns more beautiful by the planting of ornamental trees. I do not think local authorities could do too much in that direction, although I am bound to say that having seen some of their efforts, I think they would be well advised to take expert advice before planting the rather haphazard and dreadful mixtures that one sees sometimes along our highways. In spite of the fact that my speech is to be short may I mention one point in that connection? Frequently one sees trees, which, if they mature, are bound to be tall, planted directly beneath telegraph or electric wires, whereas trees such as pyrus, prunus, and crataegus should have been planted and would have added greatly to the beauties of the countryside.
But I thought that the hon. Member's remarks with regard to tree planting, in which he touched on the business side of forestry, were not quite so well informed as those in which he was speaking about amenity. I was surprised, also, that he did not mention the activities of the Forestry Commission to encourage in every way


private landowners to plant trees. The fact that there has been some difficulty in obtaining seed from abroad and that it is necessary that young plants should remain in the nursery for a number of years has been rather overlooked by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bedford.
My final remark—and I will not delay the House because I am anxious to hear what the Parliamentary Secretary has to say—is that, at the moment, private forestry at any rate, is greatly discouraged by the prices paid by the Board of Trade for home produced timber. It is no use asking private landowners who are compelled to pay something like £40 an acre for establishing woods to undertake that expenditure when they know that, even in these days when the world price of timber is reasonable, they will be made to accept a price far below that paid for imported timber. If the Government desire to see private woodland-owners making a genuine contribution to the establishment of new forests in this country they must be prepared to pay at least the world price for timber produced now. I hope the hon. Gentleman in his reply will, although perhaps it is a little beyond the scope of the Adjournment Motion, have at least a word or two to say on that matter.

10.47 p.m.

Mr. Gerald Williams: I do want to make a plea in support of what the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeffington-Lodge) has said for the decorative trees, especially in London. We have the planes in The Mall. It is a most suitable tree for London because its bark peels off in little pieces and it gets rid of the smuts and the soot. I regret that last year these trees were lopped and they looked rather like shorn sheep. They have been done a little better this year. In suburban gardens it is good to lop them, and perhaps necessary, but in The Mall trees should be in their full glory, looking as majestic as good trees can look. I would make a special plea for more rhododendrons in the London parks, because in London one must have a shiny leaf so that the rain washes oft the soot and the smuts very quickly. Rhododendrons comply with that request of nature very suitably and although euonymus and skimmias and other evergreens such as laurels, are good, the rhododendron is the best evergreen

of all. It gives a capital appreciation year after year, growing bigger and bigger, and gives a hundred per cent. dividend in the wonderful trusses it produces in May and June. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will say to us tonight that he will do his utmost to see that more rhododendrons are planted in our parks. Could I also ask the hon. Gentleman if he will not forget the catalpa? There is a row of these trees from Big Ben to Parliament Square, so that hon. Members must have seen it. It is the most suitable and most decorative perhaps of all our trees.

10.49 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Town and Country Planning (Mr. King): Might I at the outset take up, first, one of the points raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Barkston Ash (Colonel Ropner)? He referred to the problem of trees which were planted under telegraph wires and which then grew to such a height as to make them appear absurd. We have already, as a Ministry, touched upon that point. I speak from memory, but I think if he looks at Circular 24 the hon. Member will see that precise point dealt with. It will be seen that the same circular will take up many points raised by the speech of the hon. Member for Tonbridge (Mr. G. Williams). Of course, this sort of matter is most frequently one for local authorities and for various kinds of authorities. Indeed the whole topic has ranged over every Department of State far outside my own and we are often only in a position to give advice. But we have given some very good advice, as, I think, will be evidenced from the circular I have mentioned.

Mr. Vane: Can the hon. Gentleman say why the present Government have withdrawn grants from the Roads Beautifying Association which has done the best work in this country in this field?

Mr. King: The hon. Member will get the fullest information on that subject if he reads the Debate which took place in another place last week when there was a full Government statement by the hon. Gentleman the Minister of State for the Colonies.

Mr. Vane: A very poor Government statement.

Mr. King: That is a matter of opinion. I do think it was a quite unique move to celebrate the birth of Prince Charles that the Bedford County Council should have taken upon themselves the scheme they did in which they planted 500 trees on their small-holdings estates with hedgerows and small groups of trees on the homesteads. They planted lime, plane, Norway maple, sycamore, horse chestnut, beech, and red oak. I certainly commend that example, as I commend their appointment of a tree planting officer to serve their planning committee; such an appointment is not frequent. In Devonshire, at Sidmouth, a group of tree lovers without any encouragement from any Government or other Department at all, themselves got together and formed a local tree-planting society, an entirely voluntary organisation equipped with expert advisers, who largely give their services. That is another example I would equally commend.
But the important point is what His Majesty's Government do, and I must turn my attention to that. The hon. Member who raised this subject on the Adjournment referred to bad farmers. What have we done on this subject? We have in mind farmers who are using the land for purposes which are apparently mischievous. Section 28 of the 1947 Town and Country Planning Act empowers local planning authorities to make a tree preservation order where
It is expedient in the interests of amenity.
I do hope Members in all parts of the House who are interested in this sort of subject will spur on their local authorities in that direction. Many of them have not yet sought to make such an order but I hope more will seek to do so. Such an order, if made, provides that trees or groups of trees cannot be cut or topped or lopped without the consent of the authority. An order, too, provides for re-planting and any authority wishing to make such an order must first forward it to the Minister, but we are, generally speaking, glad to confirm such orders if they are at all appropriate. In all urgent cases, my right hon. Friend can make provisionally an order himself, and sometimes he does.
I do not want to make too much reference to circulars but if hon. Members read Circular 66 of my department, or

the memorandum recently published on the Preservation of Trees and Woodlands they would be satisfied at least that so far as it lies within the competence of my right hon. Friend, we are doing all we can to push that forward. It is a difficult Adjournment Debate to which to reply as so many Departments are concerned. The Board of Trade have to issue a cutting licence if more than 250 cubic feet of timber, or something like eight large trees are to be felled in one month. That is our negative action.
Let me turn to positive action, not merely prohibition upon cutting, but actual positive advance in planting. My hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeffington-Lodge) and myself both serve on the Committee now considering the National Parks Bill, and he will perhaps have in mind, as will the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Vane), Clause 72, which grants to local authorities power within national parks to plant trees in order to preserve or enhance the beauty of the countryside and restore or improve derelict land. Further, for any national park or any area of outstanding beauty there is a 75 per cent. Exchequer grant for this purpose, to which should be added the equalisation grant. So in fact the Exchequer is paying, and is willing to pay, a very high proportion of the cost of replanting.
This is not a new policy. Circular 24 was issued in 1946 in conjunction with the Ministry of Transport and I think it would be as well if I quoted a couple of paragraphs from it:
Many authorities take insufficient advantage of the pleasant effects that can be created by planting trees in urban areas, particularly where the buildings are drab and monotonous. Even where trees are planted full advantage is not always taken of the various decorative types available and not enough attention is paid to designing a planting scheme in harmony with the lay-out and architecture of the buildings. The Minister feels that fresh attention should be given to this question at the present time, when numerous and extensive reconstruction schemes are being put in hand.
I must press on, it is the last sentence which I wished to quote:
The employment of sound technical advice will also contribute to economy.
We have in that circular, and in others, frequently advised the local authority to be careful with their advisers and to get expert advice before taking action.
I have not the time, nor would I propose were there time, to deal at any length with the Forestry Commission and the system of dedication into which many owners of important woodlands do enter, by which they subject the whole of the woodlands to the control of the commissioners and obtain in exchange grants towards replanting. There are something like 3 million acres of private woodlands, and it has been estimated that something like two-thirds of that area may one day be under that system of control. This system became effective only last year so that we have within the term of our own Government made considerable advances in this matter.
Nor would I deal at length with the Ministry of Agriculture because apparently I am not competent to do so. My hon. Friend did suggest that tree planting officers under the Planning Act should be under the agricultural executive committees. I would suggest that that is inappropriate. Those committees work under Section 71 of the Act of 1947 and are charged with the duty of promoting agricultural development and efficiency. Agricultural efficiency is a very desirable thing, but it does not always

conform with amenity. They are often quite separate issues, and it is difficult to see how an agricultural executive committee could have sole responsibility for amenity planting.
So the work goes on, with the Ministry of Town and Country Planning, the Forestry Commission, the Ministry of Agriculture, the Ministry of Transport—I feel like a veritable Pooh-Bah in this matter—the local authorities and the Park Planning Committees, powerfully aided as they will be by the National Parks Commission, all at work upon this subject. I would express the hope that in the future more and more local planning authorities will appoint tree planting officers and more and more local planning authorities will obtain tree preservation orders. We share the enthusiasm of my hon. Friend for the tree. In our youth we climb it; in our adolescence we make love under it, and when our day is done our bones lie under its long shadow. So may our enthusiasm for it grow and grow.

Adjourned accordingly at Eleven o'Clock.